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.
Something confuses me here. When there is a Republican president and something bad happens, conservatives are quick to point out that there was a Democratic Congress -- and then blame Congress. But when the President is a Democrat, these same conservatives place all the blame on the President. Doesn't the GOP Congress, that passed the bills to make those tax-cuts permanent, at least share in the blame?
I remember the time quite well. Obama wanted unemployment insurance extended, which although that has never been a controversial decision historically, the GOP controlled Congress refused it until Obama agreed to extend the upper income tax-cuts and pass the rest as permanent. That's using the unemployed as hostages.
only if you believe raising taxes would in fact raise more revenue. which there is no real indication that such would happen.
Democrats had the chance to eliminate them with a super majority in congress and decided it would be a very bad idea considering the state of the economy at the time.
Debt under Obama in this (once, no longer great) country has gone from $9,000,000,000,000.00 to $18,000,000,000,000.00 and soon to be $20,000,000,000,000.00.
I'd like for ONE PERSON in this thread - liberal or conservative - that can tell me that is in any way acceptable?
You know, I used to chuckle at conspiracy theorists who said Obama is trying to destroy America (financially and morally, among other ways) but no longer do I believe it is a conspiracy; America has almost been destroyed by his (not yet over) fiasco...
As Obama said about $4 trillion in new debt back in 2008, "that's irresponsible, it's unpatriotic." Of course, now that he has added over eight trillion dollars in just six years, it's all cool.
only if you believe raising taxes would in fact raise more revenue. which there is no real indication that such would happen.
Democrats had the chance to eliminate them with a super majority in congress and decided it would be a very bad idea considering the state of the economy at the time.
The Obama flag waivers always forget that for the first two years of the Obama regime, the dems controlled it ALL.
As Obama said about $4 trillion in new debt back in 2008, "that's irresponsible, it's unpatriotic." Of course, now that he has added over eight trillion dollars in just six years, it's all cool.
How did Obama raise our national debt by $8 trillion dollars? (But you can't explain how or prove it.)
Why do you make accusations that you can't explain or prove?
Bush started the debt ball rolling with his stupid invasion of Iraq. Obama just took the easy way out and dropped the trillions in bankers' debt on the American taxpayer. The rich profited greatly during the recession, and the average American has gotten poorer, with the debt bomb strapped to his chest. We are in deep doo-doo. The debt is not sustainable, neither here nor around the world. A major economic reset is coming... and it won't be pretty.
Obama just took the easy way out and dropped the trillions in bankers' debt on the American taxpayer.
I google searched "Obama trillions bankers debt taxpayer." The first link that came up spoke about TARP, the Troubled Asset Relief Program. The official TARP cost was $700 billion dollars, but this PBS link says the real TARP cost might be $12.6 trillion dollars. The true cost of the bank bailout | Need to Know | PBS
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.