- Joined
- Dec 9, 2009
- Messages
- 134,496
- Reaction score
- 14,621
- Location
- Houston, TX
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
Of course I do. And like I said, the US does NOT have any issues raising funds to pay what it owes.
No, they really don't. If they did, we'd be seeing inflation in the double digits or more.
FY2015 is projected at $251 billion. Considering that it gets us access to the funds we need to run the government, and that interest rates are ridiculously low, it's not a bad deal.
The administration isn't the one "blaming the weather." It's independent economic analysts.
You do realize that liberals never admit when they are wrong, they just ignore the response
I lived in the Midwest throughout the 80's and we had terrible winters then but still had strong economic growth and job creation. Stop making excuses for incompetence. I live in TX now and the winter here was the worst on record and yet we still grew. I am basing my conclusions of BLS, BEA, and Treasury Data. You ought to familiarize yourself with the actual data and look particularly at the U-6 rate, the unemployment levels for the young and African Americans. What is it going to take for you to realize that liberalism is an absolute failure in a private sector economy. Maybe that is the problem you want us to be more like Europe so you don't have to work hard to be taken care of?
The winter of 2010 was much worse,not as cold.....But the blizzard that took out the Metrodome roof was much worse than anything we got this last winter lol
If that's the case, then the federal reserve is doing a pretty good job.
How many years of hyper-inflation predictions have to be made, without coming true, will you inflation guys admit that printing money doesn't create inflation? Just how many times do you have to be wrong before you will admit to being wrong.
By the way, inflation was much worse under the first couple of years of Reagan - you try to pretend that it ocurred under Carter to protect who you worship.
There you go, trying to inject facts into a thread designed to bash Obama.Y'all crack me up.
Were Obama's policies working between Q3 2009 and Q4 2013? They're predicting roughly 3% growth next quarter, because employment and manufacturing and services are picking up. If Q2 2014 is positive, will you congratulate Obama for his good policy choices?
Care to guess what caused the decline in growth? A miserable winter, reductions in health care spending, and reductions in trade. Which Obama policies affected these factors?
Meanwhile, the Tea Party types want to shut down the Export-Import bank, which will hamstring US exports, and US businesses are freaking out. Yes, clearly Obama's policies are anti-business....
The deficits were largely caused by a $500 billion drop in revenues, not Obama's growth in government. In fact, the amount of spending hasn't increased in years, which is contrary to decades of trends.Man up and criticize the GOP? LOL! What, for your "above it all" approval? Anyone that does not adhere to the principles of Constitution has my criticism. That's 100% of the Democrats and about 90% of the Republicans.
You know why we can gloss over Reagan's spending? Did you take a look at what he accomplished? A booming economy and good bye Soviet Union. Not quite the same as today, eh? Not much of a payoff (at least for us) from all the $trillions that Obama has buried us with.
Oh, and you need to brush up on the CRA if you think Bush broke the economy. His mistake was too much spending (though a mere pittance compared to Obama) and the TARP bailout.
High unemployment, (loosing 750,000 jobs per month at the end of your administration)U.S. Economy Shrinks By Most Since Great Recession in 1Q | Fox Business
Congratulations, Liberals, you are getting what you want, A European Socialist economy dependent on a Federal Govt. run by liberals and with more people dependent on that govt. for existence. This is exactly what you get when you elect and re-elect a totally unqualified individual to the highest office in the land, High unemployment, high debt, low economic growth are the new normal in this country
The deficits were largely caused by a $500 billion drop in revenues, not Obama's growth in government. In fact, the amount of spending hasn't increased in years, which is contrary to decades of trends.
If "Anyone that does not adhere to the principles of Constitution has my [your] criticism," then how do you lionize Reagan, who made deals with Iran and the Contras not only without Congressional approval but behind Congress' back?
In fact it was spending, not revenue that was the problem. Revenue dropped by 400bn. Spending increased by 900bn. Perhaps you meant the decrease in deficit was due to higher taxes? Not spending cuts.
Year/Revenue/Outlays
2007 2,567,985 2,728,686
2008 2,523,991 2,982,544
2009 2,104,989 3,517,677
2010 2,162,706 3,457,079
2011 2,303,466 3,603,059
And conservatives do admit when they are wrong. Hilarious, indeed.
Oh yeah, a Texas winter, must have been tough. Did you have to stop wearing shorts for a few weeks? We had 53 days below zero here. Here's a list of the worst winters:
Rank Year Total
---------------------
1 1875 68
2 1887 58
3 1888 57
4 1873 56
5 1978 53
2014 53
7 1917 51
8 1936 50
9 1884 49
1965 49
Oh, that's weird, not a single year from the 80s?! But... no, maybe... could you be wrong? Is that possible? No way, must be incorrect data. But you're right, conservatives like George W. Bush really did great things for the economy. I think that's proof that Republicans are right and Democrats are wrong. It couldn't be that they're all morons. That makes too much sense.
The deficits were largely caused by a $500 billion drop in revenues, not Obama's growth in government. In fact, the amount of spending hasn't increased in years, which is contrary to decades of trends.
If "Anyone that does not adhere to the principles of Constitution has my [your] criticism," then how do you lionize Reagan, who made deals with Iran and the Contras not only without Congressional approval but behind Congress' back?
Don't suppose you noticed how the revenues actually dropped from 2009 on, another gift to Obama.How startling is that difference in the outlays from 2007 to 2011?
High unemployment, (loosing 750,000 jobs per month at the end of your administration)
high debt, (fund two wars, the oil was supposed to pay for, on the taxpayer credit card )
low economic growth are the new normal in this (wages flat during your tenure)
Yep, ...this is exactly what you get when you elect and re-elect a totally unqualified individual to the highest office in the land.
Don't suppose you noticed how the revenues actually dropped from 2009 on, another gift to Obama.
Must have been the 2007 congress that caused a loss of 4.4 million private sector jobs during Bush's last 3 months and Obama's first 3.
Too bad Republicans didn't adopt their own Sen. Coburn's back-in-black plan .
By the way, inflation was much worse under the first couple of years of Reagan - you try to pretend that it ocurred under Carter to protect who you worship.
Don't suppose you noticed how the revenues actually dropped from 2009 on, another gift to Obama.
Must have been the 2007 congress that caused a loss of 4.4 million private sector jobs during Bush's last 3 months and Obama's first 3.
Too bad Republicans didn't adopt their own Sen. Coburn's back-in-black plan .
They also dropped from 2008 to 2010 and 2008 to 2011.They dropped between 2008 and 2009. From 2009 on?
2009 2,104,989
2010 2,162,706
2011 2,303,466
An increase of $200 billion is a "drop"?
They also dropped from 2008 to 2010 and 2008 to 2011.
You probably thought that was a good try .
I stopped here since I saw this in another of your posts.Guess those shovels
Not at all--your spin dear.So you admit that your statement that they dropped from 2009 on was not correct. Thanks for that.
So then is it your contention that the 1973 oil crisis and the 1979 energy crisis, both of which contributed significantly to the rise in inflation while Carter was President and continued to impact inflation in the first 1-2 years of Reagan's Presidency, were somehow Reagan's fault?
I stopped here since I saw this in another of your posts.
Nice opf Reagan then Bush-41 to send Midwest Federal Installations to Texas don't you think ?
Is this your retread Texas comment for the day--used multiple times already ?What exactly would the Obama economic numbers look like without TX?
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?