Reply With Quote
Head of the RNC would be a good fit for her, wouldn't it?
Head of the RNC would be a good fit for her, wouldn't it?
Palin would be the only choice better than Steele as far as the Democrats are concerned. Equally stupid, but higher profile.
lolololol @ trashing Palin as a hypothetical president when the present one is worthless.
Palin would be worse.
Prove it.
She would have to actually be president to prove it.
son, as stupid as you all believe her to be she can't be any more stupid than to have unemployment benefits as her only economic plan for recovery lmao lmao lmao
She has no plan. lmao lmao lmao
neither does obama. and that's not funny.
Statements like yours are just pointless. Obama accomplished with Health care what many Dems for decades had tried and failed to do. You can't point to a single failure he's had. Obama has kicked the out of republicans since he stepped into office.
If we are talking about pushing through bills with his supermajority congress then yeah he did good. but how did he pass that healthcare bill? what has that bill accomplished? What has been accomplished from us being in a recession since he has been president?
Trying to clean up someone elses ups is never easy...
Not taking responsibility for anything after four years of dem majority in the congress and two years of supermajority is pretty easy.
Yep, when you have a dumb cons uency it's easy to fool them.
What is the Republican plan?
What is the Republican budget?
What is the Republican plan for the two wars?
That is funny.
The resession started in Dec 2007. Obama didn't create it. Since Obama has taken office though, the recession has been stopped and the economy has grown. There's some debate, but it is believed the recession ended some time between May and August of 2009. So yes, Obama stopped the recession created during the Bush administration.
Yes, the economy is still bad and unemployment rates are horrible, but as the economic downturn wasn't created overnight, it's not going to be fixed overnight either. It's going to take a while right the ship that was sinking when Obama took office. Obama didn't take office with a surplus like W did.
As for health care, the bill was just signed in at the end of March. Again, legislation of this size is not going to change things overnight. It's to be gradually brought in through the years. I only wish it included the Public Option.
Here's an article that will explain to you how the legislation will be phased in:
http://www.csmonitor.com/Money/Chris...l-means-for-us
who did create it? 2007? What is your def. of recession? the economy has grown? do you have any data on that? Do you have even a sector that has grown? How exactly did obama stop this recession and why do we need more unemployment welfare if we are out of a recession?
bush technically didn't have a surplus since it was gone before he had his first budget made.Yes, the economy is still bad and unemployment rates are horrible, but as the economic downturn wasn't created overnight, it's not going to be fixed overnight either. It's going to take a while right the ship that was sinking when Obama took office. Obama didn't take office with a surplus like W did.
He snuck the healthcare bill in w/o a vote.As for health care, the bill was just signed in at the end of March. Again, legislation of this size is not going to change things overnight. It's to be gradually brought in through the years. I only wish it included the Public Option.
Here's an article that will explain to you how the legislation will be phased in:
http://www.csmonitor.com/Money/Chris...l-means-for-us
Here's the info you requested regarding the start of the recession: http://money.cnn.com/2008/12/01/news...sion/index.htm
There is debate about the recessions end. It may take more time to pinpoint exactly. But the economy has grown.
Here is a chart mapping the GDP dip marking the recession and the GDP upswing marking growth in the economy.
http://www.tradingeconomics.com/Econ...spx?Symbol=USD
The are probably many factors why there's high unemployment rates. It's possible many employers are not hiring because even though the recession is over, they may not have faith the economy will stay strong.
I always find it ironic how conservative politicians fought Obama's HC plan yet they themselves have tax payer funded health care that is provided to every federal employee. I'd love to see every single conservative politician renounce their own current health care coverage.
Where are you getting your info that Obama snuck in HC without a vote?
"With the 219-to-212 vote, the House gave final approval to legislation passed by the Senate on Christmas Eve."
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/22/he.../22health.html
Not sure where you're getting your info on the surplus Bush inherited. Bush definitely came into office with a big fat surplus. Look at the chart.
http://www.factcheck.org/askfactchec...e_federal.html
Every month, I can plan a budget with a surplus to put in savings. That doesn't mean it actually happens that way. A very simple fact to look at is this. If president Clinton had an actual surplus, rather than on paper, then why did the debt increase in 1998 to 2000, under his budgets?
Hmm that's interesting. Can I see the article with this information?
You mean you are willing to spout propaganda without looking up the facts behind the ramifications?
The last time we had an actual surplus was during the Nixon administration, believe it or not.
From the OMB, Historical tables, Table 7.1—Federal Debt at the End of Year: 1940–2015:
1960 290,525
1961 292,648
1962 302,928
1963 310,324
1964 316,059
1965 322,318
1966 328,498
1967 340,445
1968 368,685
1969 365,769 <--- dropped from 1968
1970 380,921
1971 408,176
1972 435,936
1973 466,291
1974 483,893
1975 541,925
1976 628,970
TQ 643,561
1977 706,398
1978 776,602
1979 829,467
1980 909,041
1981 994,828
1982 1,137,315
1983 1,371,660
1984 1,564,586
1985 1,817,423
1986 2,120,501
1987 2,345,956
1988 2,601,104
1989 2,867,800
1990 3,206,290
1991 3,598,178
1992 4,001,787
1993 4,351,044
1994 4,643,307
1995 4,920,586
1996 5,181,465
1997 5,369,206
1998 5,478,189
1999 5,605,523
2000 5,628,700
2001 5,769,881
2002 6,198,401
2003 6,760,014
2004 7,354,657
2005 7,905,300
2006 8,451,350
2007 8,950,744
2008 9,986,082
2009 11,875,851
2010 estimate 13,786,615
2011 estimate 15,144,029
2012 estimate 16,335,662
2013 estimate 17,453,482
2014 estimate 18,532,303
2015 estimate 19,683,285
Last edited by Wild Cobra; 07-21-2010 at 06:56 PM.
According to the chart you provided the public debt was actually paid down during Clinton's last for years in office. Intra-government debt will always go up because of Social Security. As seen during Nixon's 1968 year when the national debt went down but the intra-government debt actually increased.
It doesn't mean that a surplus can't exist. A surplus exists when revenues are higher than expenditures.
So tell me.According to the chart you provided the public debt was actually paid down during Clinton's last for years in office. Intra-government debt will always go up because of Social Security. As seen during Nixon's 1968 year when the national debt went down but the intra-government debt actually increased.
It doesn't mean that a surplus can't exist. A surplus exists when revenues are higher than expenditures.
What about interest payments?
You know, that nasty interest on the debt...
You and other liberal can pretend all you want it doesn't exist. But it does.
Also, percentage of GDP is not the same thing either.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions