And as President requested more spending than Gingrich and Kasich passed and opposed the wel-fare reform they finally forced him to sign. You see those of some political intellegence know that Presidents aren't kings who decree things, somethings that occur during their terms they supported some they opposed and when working with an opposition Congress sometimes what gets done is against their wishes. Now you have been educated a little as to the folly of you belief that everything that happens during a President's term happens "under them" as if they cause or are responsible. It takes a little more intellectual effort to understand the reality. The economy started changing in 2000 as you well know. Yes thanks to Republicans we had a surplus, not thanks to Democrats. Wrong again Bush/Republican $3.3 Trillion in 7 years Obama/Democrats $7.7 Trillion in 6 years http://useconomy.about.com/od/usdebtanddeficit/a/National-Debt-by-Year.htm but are you on record as saying you opposed deficit spending during a recession now? If you say so. The facts belay you, last Bush/Republican deficit $161B what is the deficit now, 5 years into the Obama Presidency, 7 years of Democrat budget control? See above.
Unemployment rate drops to 6.7%, where is the emergency? You extend it when it is rising and contract it when it is falling. People will STILL get unemployment benefits, but at some point must take a job and stop taking the money from others who need it to pay bills and buy food. And no we cannot give up our foreign policy initiatives in order to keep paying two years of unemployment to able bodied people.
Nice attempt to dramatize the issue, albeit a total failure. Nobody is taking away food stamps. They are taking away unemployment benefits, which is simply free money for people who don't work. They can still get food stamps until the end of time. So if someone is having food taken off the table it's by their dog eating the leftovers after their free dinner.
Also -- unless legislators have closed this curious loophole -- the food stamps credit card that's now issued in lieu of a stamp book allows the 'owner' to spend the money on anything that he or she wants; including raising bail. Now, I may be wrong about that, as I am recalling that being raised on a different forums system as an issue a couple of years ago; but still I wouldn't be at all surprised were this true. Sick to my stomach, yes, but not surprised.
No, they can only be used on actual food, and not on restaurant food. It has to be food they have to prepare. Go figure, they can be homeless, but food stamps only buy them food that they need a stove or microwave to fix. LOL That's our gov't at work.
As president who passed the tax increase that powered the surplus, and who blocked the Republican efforts for surplus busting tax cuts. They got their way in 2001. We got the golden opportunity of a surplus squandered and trillions more unnecessary debt. Insignificant. It grew by at least 3.3% every year. LOL. Clinton inherits a then record deficit, bigger than the one we have today, and with the Democrats passes a major tax increase and has a surplus by the time he leaves office. Bush takes office with the same Republican Congress and within a couple wipes our the surplus and runs up new record deficit. Yeah. Thanks the Republicans. No. "7 years of Democrat budget control"? But the answer is, the deficit is now down by half, down by over $700 billion dollars, from the year he took office inheriting a budget already projected to be $1.2 trillion and the worst recession in 80 years. Bush came into office following a $230 billion surplus in Clinton's last year, turned that into then record deficits within a couple years, and unnecessarily ran up $5 trillion more debt. I don't think the fact belay me at all.
What exactly are foreign aid initiatives?? We don't have money to help other countries remember?? WERE BROKE!! Would you loan someone else money if you were 17 trillion in the red??
Also, congress extended 50 billion in tax cuts as well, mainly aimed for the rich, with no plans to pay for it. But of course, like foreign aid (welfare for other countries) that's ok...
The tax increase that slowed revenue growth from 9% down to 7% and the tax cuts that sent it into double digits............yeah those ROFLMAO. And helped keep the recession limited and went into full effect in 2003 and revenues soared and they brought the deficit back down to a paltry $161B. How has Obama done after increasing it to over $1,400B? Where is it now? How are a recession, a dot.com bubble and 9/11 opportunities to have surpluses? OK Obama had a recession and a bubble but no 9/11 where is his surplus? He squandered a falling deficit at a paltry $161B to a $1,400B deficit, really want to match that to Bush? Recession, dot.com bust, 9/11..insignificant..........how partisainly absurd. Actually a falling one $40 less than the year before and a rapidly growing economy. But that deficit came AFTER your Democrats raised tax rates which was supposed to cause a surplus. And of course he tax increase cost us revenue growth as that growth fell from 9% to 7%. Even he had to admit he raised taxes too much. And a bad economy and conditions as we entered a recession but did the proper things, although the tax return advance didn't do anything helpful, and unemployment only hit 6.5% for one month and the deficit bottomed out at $400B and then sharply declined to a paltry $161B. Obama and the Democrats squandered that and headed them back up to $1,400B. $400B versus $1,400B. A $530B spread versus a $1,239 spread. Then what is your complaint about the Bush deficits? Yes 2008,2009,2010,2011,2012,2013,2014 Bush and the Republicans cut it by more than half down to a paltry $161B and you are bragging about a $700B, that is more than 50% higher than the worst under Republicans and Bush, you are really getting desperate here. The last Clinton/Republican surplus was $128 as it fell due to the economic slowdown that began BEFORE Bush was even elected. And Obama and the Democrats took a dramatically falling deficit down to $161B and turned it into a $1,400B deficit. Give me the Bush record any day. Tell my why Obama and the Democrats did better?
Defense of our country is the government top priority, conducting foreign affairs and relations the next. How about the National Endowment of the Arts and the Department of Education which are not proper functions of the federal government? - - - Updated - - - The tax RATE cuts under Bush produced MORE revenue and the "rich" paid a higher share of the tax burden so what exactly is your complaint?
Do tax cuts create more jobs?? Nope....I worked for a company in Michigan that got three new tax breaks over a two year period. Their workforce is down twenty percent from that period. It doesn't trickle down my friend. It goes into the pockets of a few. The only reason we spend money on foreign aid is to protect special interest. Why do we need bases in all these countries? Would we let Cuba build a base in Florida?? When we get involved in this liberal or conservative cheerleading...it fogs common sense.
I'm not going to go into that but I will say that anyone that can add 2 and 2 can see that these wonderful tax breaks aren't creating jobs. Once again common sense...if it was, we wouldn't be in the shape were in today. Hopefully, people living in the fantasy land of liberal vs conservative will wake up before it's too late.
I agree with you about the fantasy land of liberal vs conservative, it is just a fog. Reality based on the interest of few groups, who are making money. Real thing which need to be done is giving the tax cuts only to those companies who bring back the jobs, and create more jobs. Incentives should be given to those companies.
That is absolutely untrue. ROTFLMAO. Prove it "slowed revenue growth" as you falsely claim. That is absolutely untrue. Revenues tanked hundreds of billions of dollars, and the Clinton surplus was squandered and turned into record deficits in just a couple years. ROTFLMAO. The economy grew at least 3.3% every year. There was no reason to squander the Clinton surplus. ROTFLMAO. The economy grew at least 3.3% every year. There was no reason to squander the Clinton surplus. ROTFLMAO. That is absolutely untrue. The deficit was a record high when Clinton took office. ROTFLMAO. The Bush economy sucked and was far worse when he left office than when he started. ROTFLMAO. That he squandered the golden opportunity of a surplus on tax cuts that mostly helped the 1% get even more of the nation's income and wealth and unnecessary wars. Democrats didn't control the budget in 2011,2012,2013,2014. ROTFLMAO. Or did you not know that Republicans took control of the House of Representatives in the 2010 elections? Only a desperate partisan could claim that going from a $236 billion surplus to a $161 billion deficit (not counting the cost of the wars) is "cutting it by more than half." ROTFLMAO. That is absolutely untrue. ROTFLMAO. The surplus in Clinton's last full year in office was $236 billion. That is absolutely untrue. ROTFLMAO. Did you not know that Bush was a Republican?
Tax revenues fell by hundreds of billions of dollars thanks to the Bush tax cuts, and never came close to catching up, a main reason we went from a surplus budget to unnecessarily adding $5 trillion more debt.
You are denying revenue growth slowed from 9% to 7%? Yes or no? You have been refuted time and again 1990 4.12% 1991 2.23% 1992 3.43% 1993 5.79% 1994 9.03% 1995 7.41% 1996 7.49% 1997 8.68% 1998 9.02% We were already in strong growth period when Clinton took office with revenues on a STRONG upward growth curve, his tax rate increase rather than speeding that up slowed it. The Gingrich/Kasich tax rate cuts got it back on track and along with their refusal to pass Clinton's higher spending request they balance the budget and produced the surpluses. Yes as the economy slowed in 2000 the surplus fell and when the recession hit we were back in a deficit. You mean the Gingrich and Kasich surplus, Clinton opposed those surplus budgets. Recession, dot.com bust, 9/11 didn't effect revenues...........ROFL more absurdity. And that record deficit of $400 still almost half what Obama is still running whose squander caused a 3.5 times higher record. But not every quarter, there was a slowdown a recession wasn't there. Except a recession, a dot.com bubble burst and 9/11, but by that measure then there was no reason to squander the falling deficits down to a paltry $161B as Obama and the Democrats did. ROFLMAO yes after the Democrat tax increases during Bush41 that was supposed to create a surplus, but do tell me what years between the Clinton tax rate increase and before the Gingrich/Kasich tax rate decrease had a surplus He inherited a sucky economy in a slowdown and recession within weeks of his taking office. They we had a GREAT economy with 52 months of full employment and soaring revenues and a deficit in fast decline. Obama and the Democrats squandered that falling deficit and took it to almost 4 times the worst Bush deficit so how has the better record? So you don't support government stimulus under Bush but do so under Obama............gotcha. Yes they did, they controlled either 2 of the three bodies or all 3 during those periods. Yes I know, what about it? The budget is controlled by which party controls at least 2 of the following, the House, the Senate, the White House. Only a desperate partisan would claim that increasing it from $161B to over $1,400B and still running it at $700B cutting it AT ALL. Obama and the Democrats squandered that $161B falling deficit and headed them back up to $1,400B. $400B versus $1,400B. A $530B spread versus a $1,239 spread. Only a partisan would claim that a better record than Bush and the Republicans. In spite of him and of course already falling before he left office. Yes. Did you not know Obama is a Democrat and was a full voting Democrat Senator then? Dems set for fight on Bush budget "WASHINGTON — President Bush set the stage Monday for an election-year battle over spending priorities by proposing a $3.1 trillion budget that cuts spending and taxes while more than doubling the federal deficit. Bush sent his 2009 budget to Congress over the Internet, but it landed with a figurative thud on Capitol Hill. Democrats vowed to ignore most of the threatened cuts to Medicare and other domestic programs. Unlike last year, when Bush forced Democrats to accept lower spending figures, this year could prove more difficult for the president. The fiscal year begins Oct. 1, less than four months before he leaves office. VIDEO: Bush releases $3.1 trillion budget "He doesn't have us over a barrel this year, because either a President Clinton or a President Obama will have to deal with us next year," said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev. "We are not going to be held hostage to the unreasonableness of this president." Much of the president's plan has little chance of passage, lawmakers and budget experts say. Nearly $200 billion in Medicare and Medicaid savings need congressional approval, which Democrats are unlikely to provide. "Dead on arrival," vowed Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., chairman of the Senate Finance Committee." http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/washington/2008-02-03-bush-budget_N.htm Conrad Statement Following House's Final Approval of Budget (June 5, 200 "With the adoption of our budget today, we have clearly demonstrated Democrats' ability to govern.For the second year in a row with Democrats controlling Congress, we have passed a budget. This stands in stark contrast to previous Congresses. In fact, this is the first time since 2000 that Congress has adopted a budget during an election year. And even more important, this fiscal plan sets the nation back on a path of fiscal responsibility." Senate Passes FY 2009 Budget Resolution (June 4, 200 Washington, DC – The Senate today gave final approval to the fiscal year 2009 budget conference report. The five-year fiscal plan balances the budget; makes needed investments in energy, education, and infrastructure; and cuts taxes on the middle class. Importantly, the plan assumes no tax increase. It was adopted by the Senate on a bipartisan vote of 48-45. With an affirmative House vote expected Thursday, this will mark the first time Congress has adopted a budget during an election year since 2000. “We have passed a fiscally responsible budget today,” said Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad (D-ND). “This plan provides tax relief for the middle class. It makes critical investments in energy, education, and infrastructure. And it returns the budget to surplus in 2012 and 2013. Passing this budget represents a major accomplishment.”" And that included the full support and vote of Senator Obama. "The final spending bills for the budget were not signed into law until March 11, 2009 by President Barack Obama, nearly five and a half months after the fiscal year began." As I said And Obama and the Democrats took a dramatically falling deficit down to $161B and squandered it into a $1,400B deficit. Give me the Bush record any day. Tell my why Obama and the Democrats did better?
Obama extended those tax cut once he was in office so shouldn't they have been called the Obama tax cuts after that? But those cuts have since disappeared and new taxes have been slapped on everyone. Even with tax increases Obama has managed to increase the debt by $7 trillion. Unemployment at 6.7% with 74,000 jobs created last month and over 300,000 people dropped out of the labor force. Obamanomics is really doing wonders for the economy. Why do we need to extend unemployment?
BINGO!!! It's such an obvious solution. How can anybody with a heart and a soul say that it's ok to just rip away unemployment benefits with no warning. Of course there are people that are abusing it, but there are people that aren't. Those people may lose their homes, cars, etc...and what about the ones with children?? A lot of people here are so wrapped up in numbers (and God only knows if their even true) that people have lost their human compassion. I'm sorry, fault me for feeling bad for people.
Unemployment benefits have a role in giving bread and butter to the families. People needs honorable jobs, on which they could raise their families. Real efforts need to be done to put people back in the job market.
It went from 3.43% the year before Clinton's tax increase to 9% after. Only a partisan conservative could claim that is "slowed revenue growth." Conservatives claimed the Clinton tax increase, which they called the largest ever, would wreck the economy, kill jobs, and increase the deficit. Instead we saw the longest sustained period of growth post WWII, 22 million additional jobs created, poverty levels dropping to all time lows, stock markets tripling even with the correction, the unemployment rate dropping to the lowest level in decades, and the best average GDP growth since the 1960s. Oh yeah, and a then record deficit turning into a surplus. Could conservatives be more wrong? The economy grew by at least 3.3% every year. How does that explain revenues falling hundreds of billions of dollars? Go ahead and dodge the question again. It is rank partisanship to credit the same Republicans who squandered the surplus and ran up trillions in unnecessary debt once they got a Republican in the WH with the Clinton surplus. The economy grew by 3.3% every year. How do revenues fall hundreds of billions of dollars when the economy is growing every year except for tax cuts? It's never happened before in history. But I know, it RW propaganda land, raising taxes lowers tax revenues, and tax cuts increase them. It grew by at least 3.3% every year. We didn't yet, but we were well on our way: Year - Total deficit/surplus 1992 -290.3 1993 -255.1 <- Clinton tax increase 1994 -203.2 1995 -164.0 1996 -107.4 1997 -21.9 <- Capital gains tax cuts. 1998 69.3 The deficit had already been cut from a then record to miniscule before the cap gains tax cut passed in 1997. Only a partisan hack could claim that an economy with 4.2% unemployment and at least 3.3% growth was sucky. So you think that we had a GREAT economy for about half the time Bush ran the administration. What 52 months were those? Absolutely untrue. Quote where I said that. So what when the House can block all legislation? You are arguing that the Democrats "control the budget" when the Republicans control the House? Every read the constitution, much less take a course in civics? ROTFLMAO! Where did you here that, Rush? Sean? The deficit wasn't $161B when Obama took office. You don't count the year Bush took office for the surplus, so don't be a hypocrite and do the opposite with Obama. The deficit was projected at $1.2 trillion when Obama took office and hit $1.4 trillion that year. Thanks to the recession Bush left him. LOL
The tax increase occurred last year. The 53% of debt increase over the past 5 years occurred with the recession in his first couple years in office. Going with "the plan" eh? Step 1: Obstruct and use control of the House to (*)(*)(*)(*) up the economy. E.g. Create as much uncertainty as possible by threatening to cause the US to shut down the government, default on its obligations, and wreck the economy. Add 700,000+ people to the unemployment lines by eliminating government jobs. Block every single proposal by the President to create jobs. Force austerity cuts in Govt spending to prevent or limit economic growth. Step 2: Blaaaaame Obaaaaaamaaaaaa and count on the sheeple simply blaming whoever is president.
So is everyone posting here just concerned about the 1.2 million long term unemployed folks who are currently collecting unemployment? Or have you forgotten those folks who have stopped looking for work, stopped applying for unemployment, yet are to young to start collecting SS? This is the silent group no one really wants to talk about. Especially Congress or the WH. These are the folks who are living off their savings and/or living with family and friends. This country needs jobs not handouts. We will most likely have a long term unemployed issue until they reach SS age. Should all long term unemployed receive unemployment until they reach SS age? Maybe both parties need to sit down and work out a long term unemployment compensation exit strategy? Agree to a plan and stick with it. But we need to stop using the long term unemployed as political leverage.
I blame both parties for the problems with the economy and the country, but it seems only the neo-Marxist aren't willing to accept their savior is one of the worst leaders ever elected. Didn't he say he would bring the country together, that the oceans would recede and he'll heal the planet. So please spare me the "it's all republican's fault" because I'm not ignorant enough to buy the (*)(*)(*)(*) sandwich the neo-Marxist are trying to sell. We know it's all Bush and the evil republicans fault. Obama isn't responsible for any of his policies, the republicans made him do it. Obamacare is a big fat drag on the economy but that was passed with a pure party line vote without one republican vote but some how its the republicans fault it sucks. Obama proposed the sequester but its all the fault of those evil republicans. Enjoy your kool-aid. [video=youtube_share;u2pZSvq9bto]http://youtu.be/u2pZSvq9bto[/video]
I can't speak for neo-Marxist, but how can you possible say Obama is worse than our last president? Wake me up when he has squandered a surplus budget, got us into two unnecessary wars of occupation, and ended his term with a negative private sector job creation number. It wasn't Obama that wanted to cut spending or who eliminated over 600,000 government jobs.
