Not a big believer in Obama's policy --- in fact, I doubt the yearly budget will do anything but grow, not reduce. It's quite funny though how this white house spends trillions then speaks about spending freezes, signs a stimulus bill full of pork, then speaks out about how Congress has to control the pork, supports cap & trade, health care and supports big insurance company's but then wants a finanical responsibility summit, and who says there will be no lobbyists in THEIR White House but then makes exceptions and hires former lobbyists for key positions...
The native American's used to say that's speaking with a forked tongue. So this whole view that the budget will reduce by 2013... yeah...not buying it as the WH credibility right now is in the ****ter.
Maybe the Dems will take a play from the Repub playbook and exclude things from being counted in the budget. Repubs did. they claim Reagan cut spending..if you didn't count the military spending that is......LMAO If we don't count the stimulas or any social program spending then the budget should show a drop..lol
The claim that the last recession started under Clinton is absolutely true. To deny this is not only to blame Bush for a problem he didn't cause, but to deprive him of the credit for fixing it with effective policies — which is exactly why the Left is so eager in this case. Here, however, are the facts:
The unemployment rate bottomed at 3.8 percent in April 2000, and started deteriorating steadily from there (during the Clinton administration).
The fed funds rate — the overnight interest rate administered by Alan Greenspan and the Federal Reserve — peaked at 6.5 percent in 2000, and had to be lowered in an emergency move on January 3, 2001, "in light of further weakening of sales and production" (during the Clinton administration).
As the chart below shows, GDP growth fell off a cliff in the third quarter of 2000 (during the Clinton administration). Despite the shock of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, growth started to revive in the fourth quarter of 2001 (during the Bush administration).
The one and only piece of evidence offered by Media Matters that’s to the contrary is that fact that the National Bureau of Economic Research set the beginning of the last recession at March 2001 — two months into the Bush administration. Check that date on the chart above: This well-respected economic research group set the beginning of the recession after GDP growth had already crashed from almost 5 percent to near zero. But according to Media Matters, this single authority determines truth, and everyone else is a liar. The article declares that "if NBER says the recession began in March 2001, the recession began in March 2001."
The reality is that NBER is just like any other group of economists, struggling with partial and imperfect information to characterize phenomena that don't have any hard-and-fast definitions. Since NBER set the March 2001 recession start date in November 2001, there have been important negative revisions to key data. Most important, back then GDP growth for the third quarter of 2000 was reported at 1.3 percent — but now it's been revised all the way down to a negative 0.5 percent. NBER had no way of knowing that then.
In fact, NBER has been on the verge of changing the recession’s start date for this very reason. According to the Washington Post earlier this year,
NBER President Martin Feldstein said, "It is clear that the revised data have made our original March date for the start of the recession much too late," but he did not offer a different date. "We are still waiting for additional monthly data before making a final judgment," said Feldstein, a Harvard University economist. "Until we have the additional data, we cannot make a decision."
Media Matters chooses not to mention this fact.
Donald Luskin on Media Matters for America & the Clinton Recession on NRO Financial
.....You stated to me that the recession from the Clinton years started in Mar 01
j-mac
Donald Luskin???The same fool who writes for the rightwinged National Review??? Hardly credible.
Despite the media effort to pin the 2001 recession on President Bush, the fact remains that he had little to do with the last eight years of economic policy from the White House. The infamous miracle bubble of Bill Clinton's economy burst last summer when OPEC oil price increases rocked the world economy.
In February 1999, Energy Secretary Bill Richardson visited Saudi Arabia when prices were at their lowest. Richardson reportedly pressed Saudi Oil Minister Ali Naimi on the "oversupplied market" and expressed concern about "extreme price volatility."
Former Saudi minister Sheik Ahmed Zaki Yamani told a Houston oil conference that Richardson had "saved the oil industry" during that visit because his "intervention" had "persuaded" the Saudis to change policy by raising prices.
After Richardson's visit, Petroleum Intelligence Weekly, an industry newsletter, quoted Saudi officials as wanting "a price of $18 to $20 as soon as possible."
In 1999, then-President Clinton pressed OPEC to raise prices in order to finance the brutal Russian war in Chechnya. Clinton needed Russia's help settling that pesky little war in Kosovo. However, Bill was unable to aid Boris Yeltsin directly because of the rampant corruption inside Moscow.
Clinton quietly used OPEC oil diplomacy to supply Russia increased energy profits. The influx of cash into Moscow was mainly obtained through Iraqi oil sold by the U.N. and distributed through Russian suppliers. The cash paid for the Russian war and a new round of rampant corruption, centered on the former Soviet GAZPROM state oil company.
However, there were also unexpected results. The oil sales helped Saddam Hussein re-arm his military with a brand new Chinese-built air defense system. The move is also now seen as a major blunder that triggered the 2001 recession.
Clinton Recession: 'Bill' Comes Due for 8 Years of Corruption
It's official: U.S. in a recession since December 2007 - Dec. 1, 2008
yep revisionist on Repubs parts. No recession until Mar 01...
Why do you find it necessary to lie in order to make your points?
According to the BEA, the slowdown that was the "Bush recession" began in the 3rd quarter of 2000 and extended thru the thrid quarter of 2001. There was never really a 'recession' as there was no back-to-back quarters of negative growth.
A recession involves more than two consecutive quarters of economic contraction. This did not happen on 2001.There was no Recession?
A recession involves more than two consecutive quarters of economic contraction. This did not happen on 2001.
Yes. Cut spending. A lot of it.Do any of you folks who are blaming Obama for the deficit have any actual solutions for what we can DO to prevent the deficit from ballooning over the next decade?
Yes. Cut spending. A lot of it.
Answering-The-Question-Instead-Of-Boilerplate-Rhetoric Fail.
Just because you don't like the answer doesnt make the answer illegitmate or incorrect.Answering-The-Question-Instead-Of-Boilerplate-Rhetoric Fail.
And your Messiah (or maybe, your Massa') wiull run up more debt in less than three years than GWB did in 8.He can't. As a DittoHead he believes that all this is the Dems fault for being spendthrifts..Little does he realize that Reagan and Bush jr were 2 of our biggest spenders.
And your Messiah (or maybe, your Massa') wiull run up more debt in less than three years than GWB did in 8.
But, as your Messiah, you excuse Him.
Stop lying to yourself -- your continued defense of The Obama speaks plainly enough.Jesus Christ is running up debt? News to me..unlike Repubs I don't count a Politician as a Messiah...
That's a stupid ignorant statement.
The Depression was caused by Woodrow Wilson and the Federal Reserve.
When you learn enough history to admit this fact, come back.
Just because you don't like the answer doesnt make the answer illegitmate or incorrect.
Stop lying to yourself -- your continued defense of The Obama speaks plainly enough.
For every $1 of debt run up by GWB, The Obama is running up $2.75.
ummm Newsmax???? really? Charles R Smith..lol
Newsmax Media - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
who will you quote next? the Drudge Report, Redstate.com, Rush????
Why are tax revenues down? Why have specific expenditures (unemployment) increased?
Give it time, i believe it will come to you....
Because taxes are to high duh. LOL J/K
"All if it" is a perfectly legitimate answer."Cut spending" is a two-cent answer. I'm asking what spending you would cut and how, given political and economic realities (as opposed to how things would be in Ronpaultopia). And don't say "all of it." That's just stupid.
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?