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.
no the budget has failed to stabilize after bush departure. we are constantly spending in the red. u cant debt your way out of debt. we have been in CPR since obama took office.
Only three presidents managed to submit a balanced budget over the past 60 years, Clinton, Johnson and Eisenhower.
Everyone knows the economy was in much better shape when Bush was Prez than Obama. It's not even up for discussion. Only people that say different are complete morons.
But you gotta graph. LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLS.
Darn shame that all bubbles burst.
It was a manufactured economy for a blip in time.
Too many were making /spending too much money to stop it.
Bush, Obama, Clinton... all irrelevant. It is the polices that matter and what is certain is that if we continue the policies we have been pushing, this country is doomed. Who cares what idiot in suit is in office, focus on the policies, focus on what is important. Left, Right, it is all a sham to distract you from the fact that the devil is in the details.
We can't operate like this, we are on a path to self destruction.
I agree with the non - partisanship angle.
As it relates to the path to self destruction, people have been saying this since the very begining of this country.
Only three presidents managed to submit a balanced budget over the past 60 years, Clinton, Johnson and Eisenhower.
If Clinton and the GOP Congress had been forced to remove SSI/Medicare surplus contributions from the General Funds ledger - as ANY business would have been legally required to do under GAAP - they would have been FAR into the red...
IOW, it was fraudulent, and has been well documented as a lie.
Remember the smoke & mirrors about a lock box back in 1999-2000?
Too bad, so sad!
What with all the Boomers retiring now! and their contributions over the last 60 years being co-mingled with the General Funds to mask deficit spending (gone baby gone!), now the District of Criminals is having to deal with all those IOUs left in the file, time for a new game...
And plummeted even further than if we had left the taxes alone when the recession hit....
So we should have raised taxes when the recession hit? Even Obama said that was a bad idea. Or should we just keep taxes high all the times so as not to cause a recession in the first place. Since you think high taxes prevent recessions why not raise them to 50%, 75% 100%? That would be the logical conclusion using your thinking.
Multiple wars that had us putting tens of thousands of troops on the ground.... no.
Okay. lols. It's not wars that hurt the economy. It's wars where someone steps on the ground that causes recessions. lols. Talk about bull ****. And you might wanna check your history. Clinton put plenty of troops on the ground. He sent troops into 44 different countries for his military adventures(more then all other presidents combined). 43 of those have heavy Muslim populations. But only when Bush goes into a Muslim country does it caause a recession. People never claim going into Afghanistan hurt the economy. But somehow Iraq did. lmao...How is that anyway? Blowing up a town whilst flying an F-16 doesn't hurt the economy. Blowing it up with hand grenades does hurt the economy? What school of economics did you graduate from anyway?
Sure we can. Besides Obamacare, where are the new and expansive government programs? We have the bailouts, stimulus, and safety net spending which should be hopefully be temporary.
Obama has spent money on the exact same programs as Bush did. You can't point to one program that saw any significant cut in spending. Not one. It doesn't exist. So to say Bush spending sent us into recession but Obama spending is good is more bull ****.
I am not an Obama fan, but I get tired of all these falsehoods. We won't know the damage down by Obama until he's out of office, much like Bush.
Sure you're a fan of Obama. And an apologist. That make you a statist. You blame Republicans as causing problems but when Obama does the exact same thing you excuse it. Or say it's good. You ever listen to a Rush Lmbaugh or Sean Hannity? That's what you are in reverse. "My guy is better than yours, even though they are demonstrably exactly the same"
I do agree we won't know the full impact of President Obama's destructive policies until a few years down the road. What we do know is his "hope & change" economic policies have not done what he promised. And the economy is not at all better since he took office. Which would be fine if he didn't promise he could fix it.
If Clinton and the GOP Congress had been forced to remove SSI/Medicare surplus contributions from the General Funds ledger - as ANY business would have been legally required to do under GAAP - they would have been FAR into the red...
IOW, it was fraudulent, and has been well documented as a lie.
Remember the smoke & mirrors about a lock box back in 1999-2000?
Too bad, with all the Boomers contributions over the last 60 years was co-mingled into the General Funds to mask deficit spending, and IOUs left in the file, cause that bill is due NOW!
Get ready for IT! Boomers, BOHICA!
Yep. They did some of that fancy-arse Enron accounting.
And the left hates corporate "greed" and lying yet they love Bill Clinton.
Only people that think Clinton balanced a budget are morons. Or Democrats. But I repeat myself.
What with the FED pumping 10-15% of the GDP out in debt/paper...
In a report, titled "Crunch Time: Fiscal Crises and the Role of Monetary Policy," presented at the 2013 U.S. Monetary Policy Forum, you will find the section titled, "Possible implications for the Federal Reserve’s exit strategy," beginning on page 62.
Some pretty wild stuff! Such as:
Quote:
What would a negative remittance from the Treasury to the Fed look like? That is, if the Fed’s net income fell below zero, how would it fund its interest payments on reserves, and its operating expenses? Would it have to draw down its capital or take out a loan from the Treasury, asking the Treasury to issue new debt to do so? No, under the Fed’s new accounting practices adopted in January 2011, when net income available for remittance to Treasury falls below zero, this does not eat into the Fed’s contributions to capital or threaten the Fed’s operating expenses. Rather, the Fed would create new reserves against an item called the Fed’s “deferred asset” account on the asset side of its balance sheet.
Keep tax rates as they were under Bush, and wait it out.
And that's exactly where rates are at with the exception of income > $400/450K.
Those cuts were never offset with reductions in spending.
Some here seem to believe those Bush cuts stimulated the economy. They somehow forget the economy was a bubble and had nothing to do with tax cuts. People prematurely sucking the paper equity out of their homes to live beyond their means made a huge contribution to the economy back then. A mania for housing fueled construction and home improvement.
We are now in the sixth year of recession and things don't appear to be getting better any time soon. Does anybody think its possible to ever return to 2004-2007 level growth like we had when Bush was President? The Bush economy was by no means a boom like Clinton's was, but it was a comfortable time and most Americans were better off than they are today. Bush was President eight years and 2008 was only one of those years. Most of his presidency he presided over a growing economy. A return to that level of growth would be an acceptable recovery.
Or is this the new normal and the best we'll ever see the economy going forward?
Things are bad, and only going to get worse. Our president is concentrating on gun control, immigration, and climate change while the country's economy burns.
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.
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.
