Obamanomics FAIL: 2nd Quarter GDP up only 1.7%

No, if government spending is cut and nobody suffers for it, then democrats are going to get the credit, because Obama is president. This is what is burning the republicans, they want the sequester to hurt as much as possible in order to drive down the popularity of Obama, and help regain the power of the White House. Party before country is the backbone of republican politics. The entire obstructionist strategy of record filibusters and stupid wastes of times, like voting 59 times to repeal Obamacare, is useless partisan theater. And republicans refused to let the federal departments adjust the same amount of spending cuts, insisting they be across the board. Why? So that the pain would be maximized and priority of cuts would not be given to where the cuts would hurt least. Yet, the economy still grows and republicans must be getting worried.

 

Your premise doesn't make sense. Why would Obama and the Democrats take credit for spending cuts? They don't want to cut spending. They don't want Government to get smaller. If they do, and nobody suffers for it, then Democrats can't fearmonger about how people are going to starve in the streets if the Government doesn't increase it's spending year after year. They're the party of big Government, and everything they do is to achieve that goal.

 

Again, who held the power in congress to put spending and debt on the right track along with Clinton in the White House?

 

All true, and that is why the Democrats incessantly demand ever more taxpayer money and enact ever more entitlements. Despite the fact that Team Oblahblah came up with the Sequester, he's still trying to run away from it like his "progressive" comrades are doing here.



What, me cut spending? It's all the Republicans' fault!!
.

 

Clinton had both houses when his plan was implemented. Regardless, it is the President who has veto power. Good that the Reps went along with Clinton when they managed to get congress.

What does this have to do with Reagan and Bush spending like crazy ?

 

No he didn't.

 

Yeah, he did. The Democrats controlled the Congress when Clinton passed his 1993 tax increase that brought down the deficits.

You should consider getting information from sources other than Glenn Beck and you might have a more informed view.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balanced_Budget_Act_of_1997

 

Good first effort, but that wasn't the Clinton tax increase. Keep looking.

 

Duh. It all went right over your head. Amazing how Clinton was able to work with the gop, Obama can't work with anyone, not even his own party or unions >>>MOD EDIT: INSULT<<<

 

>>>MOD EDIT: INSULT<<<<

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnibus_Budget_Reconciliation_Act_of_1993
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/103rd_United_States_Congress

Proof that the Democrats controlled the Congress when Clinton passed his 1993 tax increase that brought down the deficits.

 

If you're saying it's more than Obama's $840 Billion dollar stimulus spending in 2009, you'll need to prove it. Please don't post percentages, post the actual dollars which can be converted to 2012 dollars.

 

I must be living in Billoreillyville.

This is not the twenty five years after world war two people.

Any person who says or even hints that they can bring economic gowth like your nation had during the twenty five year period after world war two, then they are either a liar or an idiot.

Of course it is the worst recovery in your nations history. Heard of India or China. It si callwed wonsizing and outsourcing and it is your business sector which has caused it not the government.

This is the exact reason why the rest of the world has a view thatall you care about is making profit. If the only reason you are in buisness is to make money, and not better the the community and the economy and all the other aspects of the community then you get what yee shall reap.

Do not go crying that the democrats are to blame. Th debt crisis and the living on the credit card started with reagan and both sides are to blame.

 

They were able to raise taxes without derailing the computerization of America. Any one old enough to remember the late 1980's, remembers there being IBM Selectric typewriters on every desk in offices, doctors offices and so on. Then they looked around by 2000 and all those typewriters were replaced by computers.

It's a reprint from News Week. The deficit went down in SPITE of the Clinton tax hikes not because of them.

Obama could replicate that too, but won't. It's called Natural Gas and Domestic Oil. If Obama would just mandate through executive order that all new vehicles purchased by the Government in area's where natural gas is readily available be flex fuel and can run primarily on Natural Gas. Then tell the EPA to lay off fracking with the new nontoxic fracking fluids. Approve the Excel Pipeline and ban buying oil from the middle east. The pipeline would supply the oil along with domestic production where we simply could blow the raspberries to the middle east countries. Is it a long term solution, of course not.

I know this grates on liberals who envision solar panel/windmill powered smart cars, but those are a long way off. To get this country moving again so you can safely raise taxes like Clinton, you need another boom time, that'd be natural gas and oil with non toxic fracking fluid.

The bottom line is there are no big breakthroughs in alternate energy right now, you can't force the technology, don't forget you're competing with cheap Chinese labor. Ya'all can either get on board for the new energy boom waiting to happen, or get buried when when the Democrats are booted out and the Republicans make it happen winning over most of the American people for lifting them out of the crap economy we're in right now.

 

What are you talking about ?

 

Compare 1981 - 1988 to 2008 - 2013. Who was spending like crazy?

 

Yes he did. Clinton had congress when first elected.

- - - Updated - - -

Bush, Reagan and so on.

Why is it that you do not want to talk about the true measure of fiscal responsibility which is the rate of increase or decrease in the deficit ?

 

And as proof, Obama is the worst offender.

 

WHAT???????

So posted a chart that Obama was spending a whole lot more than Reagan. I really don't know why you're moving the goal posts other than I proved you wrong.

 

More hyperbole, it was Obama's idea to try and force the Republicans to higher taxes on the threat of cuts in defense.

GEEZ I just said he didn't want it, it was his idea as a tool to get higher taxes. Like most of his plans it failed.

So you are now saying Obama wanted the sequester? You can't even keep up with your own post.

- - - Updated - - -

Sorry meant debt ceiling, it was not cause a default on anything, did you really fall for that propaganda?

 

You were challenged before to post the entire quote and put it into perspective as to exactly what he was talking about. You ran. You are challenged again. Bet you run again.

 

Gingrich and Kasich handed Bush a $128B surplus, Clinton opposed the measures that brought it about. And of course the welfare reform Clinton opposed had lots to do with it. And then the economy went into a slowdown, the surplus the year before and been over $200B, and a recession just as Bush took office wiping out the surplus.

Ahhh Bush and the Republicans took that recession and kept the deficit to a one year $400B high and then thanks in part to the tax rate cuts the economy took off and we had 52 months of full employment and with the spending restraints they lowered the deficit to a paltry $161B. Then in 2007, FY2008, the Democrats including on Senator Obama, took over the Congress and the budget and sent the deficit to that $1,400B and in fact it was President Obama who signed that budget into law in March of 2009.

Obama has done nothing, none of his budgets have been passed and the Senate Democrats have failed to pass budgets. The sequester which Obama desperately wanted to avoid has kept spending down slightly but it is still 50% higher than the Bush/Republican deficits at the worst.

Fallacious nonsense and Presidents alone do not control the budget nor spending. It depends on the Congressional makeup too.

- - - Updated - - -

Yes, it is you who misunderstands those numbers and that history.

 

So you would have supported Bush if he had veto'd the Democrat 2008 and 2009 budgets?

Yes the difference is what they did with them. Clinton lost his Democrat Congress because his tax increase failed to do as promised, like Obama's stimulus plan, and in fact cost us revenue and GDP growth. So tell us what happened to the deficits when Bush had a Republican Congress and what happened after the Democrats took over the Congress.

HA no he doesn't like to point that out routinely attributing the 2008 and 2009 deficits to Bush when in fact his budget proposals were DOA to those Congresses.

Not necessarily..........bottom line.

 

I dislike Obama and it would not bother me one bit to agree with you. The fact of the matter however, is that you are flat out wrong.

Fiscal responsibility = decreasing the deficit. Obama has decreased the deficit from 1.4 Trillion down to 650 Billion.

 

I'm not moving the goalposts. You just have no clue what fiscal responsibility entails.

The chart you posted shows that spending plateaus during Obama which shows that he has increased spending less than any other President on the chart.

Only someone ignorant of fiscal reality does not realize that the change in deficit is a good measure of fiscal responsibility.

Looking at the change in deficit tells you the amount of spending in excess of revenue coming in. If spending is more than revenue the debt increase. The bigger the deficit the more debt.

You can not directly compare overall expenditures during the Reagan years to overall expenditures during the Obama years (as you have done) because it is meaningless to fiscal responsibility. The economy is bigger, revenue is greater, and things cost more due to inflation.

Comparing total spending of Reagan to Obama in the way you have done tells us almost nothing as you have not put the numbers into any kind of perspective.

What you can do is compare the amount of money spent in excess of revenues as a percentage of revenue if you wanted to make some kind of broad case but this does not tell the story nearly as well as looking at the change in the deficit.