GDP Goes Negative In Fourth Quarter

what a joke, iriemon got it right

 

Yes you are

 

Dear federal Congress,

Please move some (obsolete) goal posts regarding Infrastructure in our Republic.

Thank you,

a member of the electorate of the United States.

 

you can't try to twist things, but the joke is you unwillingness to support what you said

 

Nothing to twist. I posted what you asked for 3 or 4 times. Look it up if you're that concerned. My posts are easy to search. Get a dog to jump through hoops for ya.

 

Reduce our dependence on foreign oil.

- - - Updated - - -

No they do not as I have already shown even when you try to conflate local and state and federal taxes.

 

Are you denying it?

Yes it did as it gave you the years and the numbers.

"rose less than 4 percent a year from 2009 through 2012, after growing by an average of more than 7 percent from 2000 through 2008 and by double digits in the previous decade.""

So 1990-2000 increase double digits
2000-2008 down to 7%
2009-2012 4%

THEN Obamacare went into effect.

The cost increase had been slowing for years

Lack of rebuttal noted.

Wasn't a claim and you brought it up not me.

So make up your mind, the deficit cutting due to austerity was bad so blame the Republicans or the deficit cutting due to austerity was good so credit Obama. Which is it you are talking out both sides of your mouth.

Prove it.

Yep going on 7 years after Bush left office and it stills sucks.

Where did I claim Bush was a Democrat?

Where did I claim he was. Are your arguments really this lacking?

It was the Democrats who increased spending from $161B to $1,400B not Republicans. Bush wasn't even the Congress which was controlled by the Democrats who passed the budgets. But guess who was in that Congress? Barak Obama who supported and voted for those spending increases, got his spending into the 2009 budget and as President signed it into law.

Why do you assert that the Democrats in Congress rubber stamped Bush budgets and passed them? Prove this what happened.

 

then you shouldn't have a problem reposting it

 

And you shouldn't have a problem finding it.

 

what page is it on?

 

The one where I posted it.

 

it's abundantly clear that your answers are worthless and invalid

 

Likewise.

 

that's just not the case, i answer questions fully and often repost them numerous times

 

Good for you. I don't do the 'lap dog' thing. Look it up..............or don't. Your call.

 

what you don't do is answer questions, it has nothing to do with dogs

 

We disagree. Go fetch what you're looking for.

 

Blame Obama!

 

i already know your answers are bunk

 

Then stop asking.

 

I didn't say. I asked you to prove your claim. Which you've utterly failed to do.

It didn't prove your claim at all.

LMAO! Should I do what you do and dodge and and divert and say: "Do you deny it"?

Nah.


There are three main reasons for that: the slowly-improving economy is putting more people back to work, which means fewer safety net payments and more tax revenue; defense spending cuts; and the tax hikes from January 1 2013 have gone into effect.

Indeed, it's not the spending side of the ledger that has shrank the budget deficit, but the tax side.

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/keving...icit-shrinks-due-to-more-tax-revenue-n1590424

Bush left office in 2009, not 2007.

2014 - 2009 = going on 7 years?

Only in Bluesguy world.

See your prior post.

Nothing is lacking.

Bush wasn't a Democrat and left office in 2009, not 2007. The Great Recession Bush left us caused the spending increase. Obama inherited almost all the spending in FY 2009.

But don't take my word for it.

The truth is that the nearly 18 percent spike in spending in fiscal 2009 — for which the president is sometimes blamed entirely — was mostly due to appropriations and policies that were already in place when Obama took office. ... Since pictures can convey information more efficiently than words, we’ll sum up the official spending figures in this chart. It also reflects our finding that Obama increased fiscal 2009 spending by at most $203 billion, accounting for well under half the huge increase that year. ... So by our calculations, Obama can fairly be assigned responsibility for — at most — 5.8 percent of the $3.5 trillion that the federal government actually spent in fiscal 2009, which was 17.9 percent higher than fiscal 2008.

http://www.factcheck.org/2012/06/obamas-spending-inferno-or-not/

When Obama took the oath of office, the $789 billion bank bailout had already been approved. Federal spending on unemployment benefits, food stamps and Medicare was already surging to meet the dire unemployment crisis that was well underway. See the CBO’s January 2009 budget outlook.

Obama is not responsible for that increase, though he is responsible (along with the Congress) for about $140 billion in extra spending in the 2009 fiscal year from the stimulus bill, from the expansion of the children’s health-care program and from other appropriations bills passed in the spring of 2009.

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/obama-spending-binge-never-happened-2012-05-22?pagenumber=2

Listening to a talk radio program yesterday, the host asserted that Obama tripled the budget deficit in his first year. This assertion is understandable, since the deficit jumped from about $450 billion in 2008 to $1.4 trillion in 2009. As this chart illustrates, with the Bush years in green, it appears as if Obama’s policies have led to an explosion of debt. But there is one rather important detail that makes a big difference. The chart is based on the assumption that the current administration should be blamed for the 2009 fiscal year. While this makes sense to a casual observer, it is largely untrue. The 2009 fiscal year began October 1, 2008, nearly four months before Obama took office. The budget for the entire fiscal year was largely set in place while Bush was in the White House.

http://www.cato.org/blog/dont-blame-obama-bushs-2009-deficit


Having said that, it is impossible to look at the chart and not to see a large ramp up in outlays under George W. Bush — the president who reversed the direction of federal outlays, which had been falling. Indeed, it is perfectly reasonable to argue that much of the responsibility for 2009’s 25.2 percent rests with President Bush, and not with President Obama; in January 2009, before President Obama took office, the CBO released its forecast that fiscal year 2009 would see outlays of 24.9 percent of GDP based on pre-Obama policies.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2012/09/03/yep-obamas-a-big-spender-just-like-his-predecessors/

On Jan. 7, 2009, two weeks before Obama took office, the Congressional Budget Office reported that the deficit for fiscal year 2009 was projected to be $1.2 trillion.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...obama-inherited-deficits-bush-administration/


Why do you assert that the Democrats in Congress rubber stamped Bush budgets and passed them? Prove this what happened.[/QUOTE]