War spending, tax cuts, bailout packages and the slowdown in the economy all contributed to the deficit. You may need to review the thread.
Misery Index soaring under Obama
- Thread starter bugscoe
- Start date
War spending, tax cuts, bailout packages and the slowdown in the economy all contributed to the deficit. You may need to review the thread.
It's hard to put the bulk of the blame anywhere else when there was a Republican congress and a Republican president for years and the deficit went right out of control.
My opinion is that the Democrats are more fiscally conservative than the Republicans because no one holds the Republicans' feet to the fire when they're in power -- certainly Fox doesn't -- however when the Democrats are in office the Republicans continuously (and rightly) hold their feet to the fire about fiscal matters.
Thus the deficit is being reduced and is projected to be reduced even more next year. When it comes to action on reducing the deficit, the Democrats seem to be the ones who act (maybe out of fear, but whatever.)
It's ignorant, although unfortunately typical, to judge matters on a party vs party paradigm. The fact is that each individual administration should be judged independently. The distinction between "republican" and "democrat" are nominal. For example comparing the Obama administration to the Clinton administration is fcking absurd. They have very, very little resemblance to each other. Also, Bush 2 vs Reagan. The only meaningful difference btwn Bush and Obama is healthcare. The Left/Right axis of the political spectrum is a distraction.
Obama and Clinton's administration have little resemblance? Both tried to introduce health care reform as a priority. Both are attempting to or did reduce the deficit (yes, if you look at the numbers Clinton did it from 1993 onwards.) Both had little support among the opposition. Both administrations struggled with gays in the military. I could go on, but they seem very similar to me.
To claim that there is no difference between Democrats and Republicans, also seems incorrect. After six years of Republican leadership the deficit was incredibly large (and hidden as emergency expenditures). There was a massive war on, thousands of Americans died either in attacks on the mainland or in war, at the end of Republican rule polls indicated that the entire world, except for Britain, was against the US policy positions. I could go on.
No, there seems to be large differences between the parties in practice. Not as much as I would like, certainly, but large differences.
LOL!! Really splitting hairs there aren't ya? Clinton brought welfare recipient levels down to the lowest numbers since the inception of the program. Under Obama welfare recipients have skyrocketed.
Bill Clinton did very little to healthcare.
With regard to the budget we had a surplus during Clinton-the highest in history, whereas Obama has given us trillions upon trillions of debt with "stimulus packages" and corporate bailouts, making the worst deficit in history even worse!
"I could go on and on" ROFL!!! I'm sure you could but it would be just as stupid as the shit you said in this last post...
Now you are blaming the 9/11 attacks on Bush? ROFLMAO!!!
Clinton era had ultra low inflation and exceptional employment. Obama has brought record unemployment. Even with the skewed employment stats it's still double digit. Obama hosted the worst economic conditions since the great depression. Clinton hosted the most productive times in the last century, with more startups and small/midsize businesses than any other time in recorded history...
Lots of similarities you say?? LMAO!!! You mean BESIDES the meaningless political label?? What a clown...
You are a good little sheep....
There is very little difference between the parties. They are both authoritarian big government shills. The only meaningful difference between Obama and Bush is healthcare.
Clinton cut capital gains tax in half.
Clinton and Obama have very little in common besides the fact that they are both talented speakers.
Bill Clinton did very little to healthcare.
With regard to the budget we had a surplus during Clinton-the highest in history, whereas Obama has given us trillions upon trillions of debt with "stimulus packages" and corporate bailouts, making the worst deficit in history even worse!
"I could go on and on" ROFL!!! I'm sure you could but it would be just as stupid as the shit you said in this last post...
Now you are blaming the 9/11 attacks on Bush? ROFLMAO!!!
Clinton era had ultra low inflation and exceptional employment. Obama has brought record unemployment. Even with the skewed employment stats it's still double digit. Obama hosted the worst economic conditions since the great depression. Clinton hosted the most productive times in the last century, with more startups and small/midsize businesses than any other time in recorded history...
Lots of similarities you say?? LMAO!!! You mean BESIDES the meaningless political label?? What a clown...
You are a good little sheep....
There is very little difference between the parties. They are both authoritarian big government shills. The only meaningful difference between Obama and Bush is healthcare.
Clinton cut capital gains tax in half.
Clinton and Obama have very little in common besides the fact that they are both talented speakers.
Yes, they certainly have given that the NBER states that the country is coming out of the worst recession since the great depression. Not to mention that you're comparing eight years of Clinton to a year and change of implemented economic policies from the Obama administration.
Don't remember "Hillarycare?" The Clinton administration, just like the Obama administration, attempted to implement their evil Communist health care ideas just like Communist countries like Canada.
Bush announced both the "stimulus packages" and the automaker bailouts. If you're going to blame that on Obama you should at least have a response ready at hand for the inevitable posting of Bush's GM bailout announcement.
Well that's not exactly what I wrote. We were discussing the differences between administrations and that's certainly a contrasting point between the Bush administration and the Clinton or Obama administrations. (But yes, the Republicans are to blame insofar as Bush didn't put the airports on alert after receiving warnings, didn't read his PDB's or didn't follow up on them, and his administration was too busy on missile defense, as they say, to focus on terrorism even after receiving no less than 10 transition briefings on the terrorist threats as we now know.)
Any thoughts as to why the country was in a recession due to Obama's policies beginning in December 2007?
I'll address your usual dose of BS first. Clinton did NOT try to "implement health care ideas like Canada". They wanted to require everyone to carry some degree of coverage. Also, the we weren't "coming out of the the worst recession etc" when Obama took office. We were coming into it. It's been a couple years now, we still have double digit unemployment even by their skewed stats. By accurate stats, with any common sense definition of "employment" we're in the mid 10s with unemployment.
Yes, Bush DID start the bailouts, thanks for once again proving my point that outside of healthcare and public speaking talent, there is little meaningful difference between Bush and Obama in terms of actual policy. I'll admit the rhetoric was very different.
No you didn't "exactly" write that 9/11 was Bush's fault. But that is what your statement amounted to, which is an utterly stupid assertion. I don't know who's ideas are more stupid, yours or Hermette the truther's... I'm no fan of Bush, and never was. However, 9/11 was not his fault, at all.
I never said that Obamas policies caused a recession in 2007, that's just more of your fictional bullshit, as usual. I never said it. But thanks for proving all of my points.
Yes, Bush DID start the bailouts, thanks for once again proving my point that outside of healthcare and public speaking talent, there is little meaningful difference between Bush and Obama in terms of actual policy. I'll admit the rhetoric was very different.
No you didn't "exactly" write that 9/11 was Bush's fault. But that is what your statement amounted to, which is an utterly stupid assertion. I don't know who's ideas are more stupid, yours or Hermette the truther's... I'm no fan of Bush, and never was. However, 9/11 was not his fault, at all.
I never said that Obamas policies caused a recession in 2007, that's just more of your fictional bullshit, as usual. I never said it. But thanks for proving all of my points.
Well the NBER, the group that is the ultimate arbiter of when recessions start and end, state that the recession started in December 2007. So if you mean by "coming into it" that it was about 14 months into it when Obama took office, then yes, the country was "coming into it." Now, let's see... who was in power and set fiscal policy for the 2007 fiscal year in the OMB?
Even higher unemployment, actually, if you use the pre-1990 calculations -- and it's actually improved and stabilized recently.
Little difference apart from the hundreds of thousands of dead people, you mean.
Of course you didn't write that, because it would be silly to blame Obama for the deficit that started with the Republicans in 2001 and recession that started in 2007. Errr... right?
LOL!!! The group that is the "ultimate arbiter" of when recessions start and end. That's funny, wonder why someone didn't just call and tell them to end the recession!!
The NBER is no "ultimate arbiter" of anything. They are a pro-obama, left wing think tank, who largely just praise whatever democrats do, and criticize whatever republicans do. They known throughout the economic community to be cheerleaders for quasi socialist policies.
The NBER told us that the repeal of glass stegall was fine and dandy, you know the action that CAUSED the whole mortgage meltdown??(one not-so-great accomplishment of the Clinton administration) The fact that you make an appeal to it borders on pathetic.
And no, employment hasn't 'improved' in any meaningful sense. It has stabilized, however, in the mid teens. Congrats Obama for stabilizing unemployment in the mid teens.
Little difference in that Bush started a bullshit war on false pretenses. A war Obama said he'd immediately initiate the conclusion of. It was in fact a war he continued, and even sent MORE troops into. We've been there almost 10 years now, it's time to go home. That's one of the pretenses he was elected upon. He hasn't done what he said he'd do. So no, NOT different except the dead people. Alike because of the dead people.
I didn't blame Obama for the economy of 2007, you just made that up. More of your fictional BS. You just lied about what I said. Don't worry, I'm not offended. I'm sure it's part of your disorder, so I don't take it personally...
Btw, the deficit didn't start in 2001. You're welcome...
The NBER is no "ultimate arbiter" of anything. They are a pro-obama, left wing think tank, who largely just praise whatever democrats do, and criticize whatever republicans do. They known throughout the economic community to be cheerleaders for quasi socialist policies.
The NBER told us that the repeal of glass stegall was fine and dandy, you know the action that CAUSED the whole mortgage meltdown??(one not-so-great accomplishment of the Clinton administration) The fact that you make an appeal to it borders on pathetic.
And no, employment hasn't 'improved' in any meaningful sense. It has stabilized, however, in the mid teens. Congrats Obama for stabilizing unemployment in the mid teens.
Little difference in that Bush started a bullshit war on false pretenses. A war Obama said he'd immediately initiate the conclusion of. It was in fact a war he continued, and even sent MORE troops into. We've been there almost 10 years now, it's time to go home. That's one of the pretenses he was elected upon. He hasn't done what he said he'd do. So no, NOT different except the dead people. Alike because of the dead people.
I didn't blame Obama for the economy of 2007, you just made that up. More of your fictional BS. You just lied about what I said. Don't worry, I'm not offended. I'm sure it's part of your disorder, so I don't take it personally...
Btw, the deficit didn't start in 2001. You're welcome...