Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It was voted on 90-8-2 in the Senate and 362-57-15 in the House. It was a very bipartsan bill.
Yours is another excellent post showing why we are in such a mess. Too many willing to forgive practically anything from one side while condemning the other for the very same actions.
Revenues for 2012 are $2.49 trillion. Record revenues were $2.53 trillion.
However, spending increased from $2.9 trillion at peak revenue to $3.9 trillion in 2012.
So let me see...................... we have about a 4-5% decline in revenue and have a 30% increase in spending and you say we have a revenue problem? Perhaps you need to work on your cipherin'.
You need another tactic, as this one works about as well as the contention that the "rate" of government spending has not increased. The debates will be hilarious if Obama is going to use those "arguments" without a teleprompter.
Mr. Obama a big spender? Actually, no; there was a brief burst of spending in late 2009 and early 2010 as the stimulus kicked in, but that boost is long behind us. Since then it has been all downhill. Cash-strapped state and local governments have laid off teachers, firefighters and police officers; meanwhile, unemployment benefits have been trailing off even though unemployment remains extremely high.
Meanwhile, revenue is down (see chart) by about .5-trillion -- which is around 1998 levels, even though the population is greater now.
Mr. Obama a big spender? Actually, no; there was a brief burst of spending in late 2009 and early 2010 as the stimulus kicked in, but that boost is long behind us. Since then it has been all downhill. Cash-strapped state and local governments have laid off teachers, firefighters and police officers; meanwhile, unemployment benefits have been trailing off even though unemployment remains extremely high.
Meanwhile, revenue is down (see chart) by about .5-trillion -- which is around 1998 levels, even though the population is greater now.
Wow! That is a pretty graph that shows nothing. OBAMA IS A BIG SPENDER.
Revenues are down 5%, which spending is up 30%. Try again. Those facts are pesky little problems for Obama and the liberals. Now matter how you spin them, it comes up bad for Obama.
Funny. Most people don't get it that both Nazi's and Fascist were in fact socialists.
Hitler's party name is Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei !!
Every time I speak to some liberal idiot with History 101 behind him I always hear that Nazi's and Fascist were on the right side of the isle. Funny.
Funny that select people believe that it is all in the name, and nothing in the actions. If you would like to do better than that... if Nazis were that, why were communists and social democrats their political enemies?
Revenues are down 5%, which spending is up 30%. Try again. Those facts are pesky little problems for Obama and the liberals. Now matter how you spin them, it comes up bad for Obama.
Funny. Most people don't get it that both Nazi's and Fascist were in fact socialists.
Hitler's party name is Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei !!
Every time I speak to some liberal idiot with History 101 behind him I always hear that Nazi's and Fascist were on the right side of the isle. Funny.
The Party was named "National Socialist" to win favor of the popular Socialist movement within Germany. It had nothing in reality in common with Socialism.
...And not corrected under bush and intiated under reagan
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.