That's because bigger budget means more manpower, which means more influence. The DoD cant afford budget cuts without hurting performance because, like everyone else looking for more power, they always cut the areas that will have the most noticeable and negative impact. Thus ensuring no more cuts are pushed on them.
We see it first in my business because we work across all industries. The recession has already started. http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/us-coming-into-a-recession.558815/
All of the congressional republicans from 2001-2007 TIMELINE FOR FANNIE/FREDDIE REGULATION 1995-2006 No legislation to further regulate GSEs is passed by a Republican-controlled Congress. October 7, 2004 The House Financial Services Committee Chairman Michael Oxley (R-OH) cancels a markup on legislation to reform GSEs at the request of President Bush. According to CBS Marketwatch: “Strong opposition by the Bush Administration forced a top Republican congressman to delay a vote on a bill that would create a new regulator for mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.” May 25, 2005 The House Financial Services Committee, under control of House Republicans and Chairman Oxley, passed a GSE Reform bill, H.R. 1461, by a vote of 65-5. Every Democrat on the Committee voted for the bill. Five Republicans, arguing that the bill did not go far enough, voted against H.R. 1461: Reps. Ed Royce, Ron Paul, Tom Feeney, Jeb Hensarling, and Scott Garrett. July 28, 2005 The Senate Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee, then chaired by Sen. Richard Shelby (R-AL), passed S. 190, the Bush Administration’s bill, out of Committee. The bill was passed by a party-line vote of 11-10. The bill did not reach the Senate floor for a vote. October 26, 2005 On the day the House was scheduled to vote on H.R. 1461, the Bush Administration issued a Statement of Administration Policy opposing the House Republican GSE bill. October 26, 2005 H.R. 1461 passes House by a vote of 331-90, with 122 Democrats voting in favor. Note: Frank voted against the bill when it reached the floor, but not because of any opposition to reforming the GSEs, but because the Republican leadership decided to cut out funding for faith-based charities that provide low-income rental housing from the Affordable Housing Trust Fund. September 2006 Oxley and Frank send a bipartisan letter to Senator Shelby urging GSE reform. Many Democrats and Republicans signed this letter urging the Senate to act. January 2007 Democrats take control of the House and Senate; Barney Frank is named Chairman of the House Financial Services Committee. March 28, 2007 The House Financial Services Committee passes H.R. 1427, the GSE reform bill, by a vote of 49-15. The legislation had the support of the Bush Administration and represented a tougher bill than the 2005 effort. Incredibly, 19 Republicans opposed the bill. May 22, 2007 The House of Representatives passes H.R. 1427, by a vote of 313-104. All opposition came from Republicans. January, 2008 Chairman Frank offers to insert both GSE reform and FHA reform into the stimulus bill that was being negotiated by Democrats and Republicans in Congress and the Bush Administration. Secretary Paulson declined, citing opposition from the White House. May 8, 2008 House of Representatives passes H.R. 3221, which contains GSE reform provision, after receiving the Senate amendments to the original bill. May 20, 2008 The Senate Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee passes a bill containing GSE Reform provisions- The Federal Housing Finance Regulatory Reform Act of 2008. July 11, 2008 The United States Senate passes GSE reform as part of a bigger bill. July 30, 2008 President Bush signs GSE reform as part of H.R. 3221 https://financialservices.house.gov...11/timeline_for_fannie_freddie_regulation.pdf
Why would you be citing military spending as a function of GDP? Who TF cares what the GDP is, we're spending way to f**king much money on defense.
It was to compare the total outlays to one another as a percentage. Take a Xanax. I agree we spend — at minimum — double what we should be spending on defense
We are so hooked on Chinese stuff. “Exports declined last month as a result of the step-up in U.S. tariffs in May and waning global demand,” said Julian Evans-Pritchard, senior China economist at Capital Economics, a consultancy. “Imports also weakened on the back of a renewed domestic slowdown,” he added in a note. In May, exports inched up 1.1% year-on-year, while imports fell 8.5% during the same period. China’s May overall trade surplus was $41.65 billion. The overall trade surplus in June, meanwhile, was $50.98 billion, higher than economists’ expectations of $44.65 billion in a Reuters poll. China’s trade surplus with the U.S. was $29.92 billion in June, up from $26.89 in May, customs data showed. For the first half of 2019, China’s trade surplus with the U.S. was $140.48 billion — higher than $133.76 billion in the first half of 2018. https://www.cnbc.com/2019/07/12/chi...ases-june-trade-data-exports-and-imports.html
We can agree to the stipulation that a budget cannot become law until the President signs it, I have repeatedly agreed to that stipulation you do not have to keep repeating it. Now once again explain how Bush could have vetoed the Democrats 2009 budget. How does an ex-president veto a budget? "In FY2009, Congress did not complete work by September 30, 2008. President Bush did sign some appropriations bills and a continuing resolution to keep the government running into President Obama’s first term, yet a Democrat controlled Congress purposely held off on the big spending portions of the appropriations bills until Obama took office. They did so for the purposes of jacking up spending. President Obama signed the final FY2009 spending bills on March 11, 2009. The Democrats purposely held off on the appropriations process because they hoped they could come into 2009 with a new Democrat-friendly Congress and a President who would sign bloated spending bills. Remember, President Obama was in the Senate when these bills were crafted and he was part of this process to craft bloated spending bills. CQ reported that “in delaying the nine remaining bills until 2009, Democrats gambled that they would come out of the November 2008 elections with bigger majorities in both chambers and a Democrat in the White House who would support more funding for domestic programs.” And they did. The Truth about President Obama's Skyrocketing Spending "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. "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 So once and for all do you still contend Bush could have and should have vetoed the Democrats 2009 budget so he is responsible for the resulting $1,400B deficit? Else explain why you keep trying to blame Bush for Democrat budgets and the resulting deficits?
Parties don't cause recessions as you well know and the deficit exploded because of HUGE spending increases passed by the Democrats in their budgets and the failed $900B stimulus. As you well know.
Sorta like he tries to blame Bush for the huge deficits because he did veto the Democrats spending he supported.
What quite clearly and correctly said was, republicans directly caused the crash. As I just showed you.
Great! You’ve taken a step forward and finally learned a portion of basic civics. Bush owns every budget he signed. He and republicans are responsible for the high deficits and tanked revenues, because they directly caused the worst recession in 80 years. That is quite expensive to fix.
Just 2.1%??? HOLY MOTHER OF SWEET BABY jesus!!! Didn't the fat republican blowhard tell the rubes that his tax cuts would deliver "4, 5, and maybe even 6 percent" growth????? https://twitter.com/keithboykin/status/1154733802066972672?s=20 Talk to me, RUBES!!!
What I said was crystal clear. Your claim was proven false https://financialservices.house.gov...11/timeline_for_fannie_freddie_regulation.pdf
If you have something I say then say I don't waste my time on your blind links which refute nothing. When are you going to explain how Bush could have vetoed the Democrats 2009 budget bill.
What I said was crystal clear. Your claim was false. I gave you a citation showing that. You reading it or not doesn’t make you any less wrong.
If you have something to say then say it else stop wasting my time with your fallacious claims and non responses to rebuttal of your assertions.
You didn't say that though. You only pointed to ways GOP failed to rein them in. We already knew Clinton's amendments to the CRA was the direct cause.
The Bush crash. All those chances. https://financialservices.house.gov...11/timeline_for_fannie_freddie_regulation.pdf
So it's not the fault of the people that caused the problem. It's the fault of the people that didnt fix it a decade later?
