Nothing is confusing - you're being deliberately obtuse in order to prevent from making an admission that would damage the intellectual footing of your chosen position. Another day on the BBS.
...don't ever lecture Republicans on deficits again, libs. As I stated, this is a level of fiscal irresponsibility that has never before been seen. Most of this spending isn't even a reaction to the economic condition of today -- it's just the liberal Congress ejaculating a load of pent-up social spending programs on taxpayers -- programs that have been blocked by 8 years of Republican control of the White House. Totally voluntary programs that 'give-back' to the voting blocs that put this unqualified fraud in the White House.
a picture is worst more than a thousand words. as the chart illustrated, the only president to generated surplus was not a Republican. Every Republican President has generated deficits. As because none of the Republican President was able to generate surplus doesn't mean that a surplus is not possible. just ask bill clinton. thank you for making it so easy for me to point out your ignorance.
To be honest though, 2009 was partially propped this low by Bush's last hurrah. Not to mention the fact that the only surplus run was, surprise surprise, by a Democrat (who was of course, immediately rewarded by the family first party by almost getting run out of town for a blowjob) But...bleh, this partisan crap is BULL****. This mess is everyone's fault. Dems. Libpigs. Rednecks. Whatever. It's useless to play whodunit at this point with the cat out of the bag.
addo -- actually, it took a Republican Congress to bring things in line. It's obvious what a Democratic President, House and Senate will do to the budget -- just look at that HUGE ENORMOUS $2 trillion budget defict on the graph. OWNED
That graph's scale would be OBLITERATED by Obama's $2 trillion budget deficit. Dang, I'm whippin some t*** today, boys! This is too easy.
traitor_Jorge and the Republicans ruled Congress during GWB's first 6 years, the eras of reckless spending. can we say "the bridge to nowhere" only after the election of 2006, when Dem gain control of Congress, did W's deficit spending trend downward. that was too easy. next
That proposal never made it into law. So it doesn't factor into any budget. So you are clueless. You have no cred. You think on the level of a child.
Anybody with two cents of sense and pride in America would not be delighting in a game of whodunit. But it's been abundantly clear you have neither. You play little narcissistic mind-games and then run off when real challenges are posed. Fair enough. If you want to make this a partisan mudfest, we can. In the long run, it is these sorts of things that are destroying America, but hey, if Congress does it, why can't all-important Clutchfans? http://www.capitalgainsandgames.com...h-gimmicks-2009-obama-deficit-would-have-been http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/10/business/economy/10leonhardt.html
Bush spent like crazy, and Obama is going down the same road. At some point, it becomes Obama's problem, and not just an inherited one. I'm still skeptical about the stimulus bill. Still have yet to see any real impacts from that. I know the unemployment numbers are lagging indicators, but wasn't a bulk of this bill to help create jobs?
ROFLMAO Traitor_of truth,just because u lack to mental capacity, doesn't mean that the pork barrel legislation didnot impact the budget.
the stock market, VIX indicator the future market are leading indicators. they suggest that the economy has stabilized, a stark contrast to GWB's last 6 months in office.
i'm actually skepitcal about the stimulus bill also, would like to see go to more construction projects. i have a feeling that we are seeing a real correction to our economy that may force us to have to look a new standard of unemployment, at least until people start spending the money they are saving. unfortunately for obama, it may hurt his chances for re-election
WTF are you talking about, the Obama bank bail out was the Bush/Paulson plan, please explain what do you mean by "half-assed job". The plan wasn't complete because he was out of the office already, and AIG? So what Geithner did with AIG that was drastically different than Paulson?
Would that be the Obama Standard? 10% God help us if we factor in the underemployed. Then it's more like 15% or higher. The stimulus bill has failed to live up to Obama's job promises -- in fact, the economy has lost jobs at a rapid clip. Mainly because the stimulus bill didn't provide the TIMELY stimulus that was needed. Instead, it saddled us with a HUGE budget deficit and minimal impact towards staving off job losses. What are we losing, 15,000 jobs per day under Obama? Some stimulus. The dollar is going to be worthless if we continue printing money at this rate. Then guess what will happen -- oil will be selling for $200/bbl. Thanks Obama!
No, I am making an observation on both Bush were and Obama are spending us into bigger deficits. This "when in doubt just blame Bush" strategy isn't going to work forever. I don't have a chosen position, I am on the side of whoever can fix this. That person(s) might not have to be the president, then again I also believe presidents have less impact on economy then most people think.
I used to know some ladies that liked to have their t*** whipped...can be a very stimulating experience for all parties involved.
