If he's defeated in 2012. History might say something like "President Obama was notable as the first Black President (or, whatever is politically correct in 2050) and the first downgrade to US credit rating. He served one term with no other notable accomplishments.
Bush2 will get discussion on 9/11 & perhaps be credited with democracy in Iraq or even a freedom trend in Middle East if both don't end up failing.
Clinton will have scandal and general maintenance.
Bush1 gets nothing.
Reagan gets long term economic prosperity and the end of the cold war.
The US is an odd ship. The captain yells out when he sees obtacles , but 535 individual propellers do the steering.
more of what they earn be an expense to the govt? Increasing outlays means increasing expenses but has nothing to do with keeping more of your money. When you want to reduce debt you cut spending. Govt wants to reduce the debt they increase taxes and increase spending.
Aid to state or aid to unions? There is a difference. Why is it the people of TX's responsibility to bail out the state of Illinois? Aid to states has to be paid for and will be paid for by the state taxpayer when that Federal funding runs out.
BTW in Obama jobs bill there are provisions to pay for it.
Now if you were truly worried about running deficits and increasing debt these things would have meaning to you. However we all know that NOT to be the case in regards to you.
then either refute the data I have posted or stop defending him. His record is indefensible and makes you look foolishSwit;1059897655]I didn't vote for him... how is he mine.... and fine.... I will give you $1,000,000 if you can show a single post of mine where I made the claim that somehow individuals keeping money is a government expense.
Seems it is only confusing to Obama supporters. I posted the data, gave the verifiable source for the data, and Obama supporters claim that data is distorted yet have never proven it but they have proven that they can distort data quite well, i.e. private sector job grow which doesn't tell the whole story but makes it look like an Obama success. The real number is 2.6 million NET JOB LOSS.Ahh but this is clearly not what my response was to.... you said... and I quote:
how is adding confusion to a conversation anything other than an attempt at deception?
I am still waiting for proof that the single payer system has lowered costs and improved health care quality. There aren't 310 million people in Canada and healthcare costs in Canada haven't improved nor has the quality.
You are wrong in trying to defend the indefensible.Can you please explain what I was wrong about? k, thnx
What happens when the money runs out and how is increasing the taxes on the job creators going to pay for any job creation? Who pays those expenses when the money runs out?
Keep trying but the fact remains, spending causes debt not tax cuts. When you have debt you cut spending.
By the way, time for Church, bbl
Last edited by Conservative; 10-23-11 at 10:01 AM.
- The aging of the population and increases in per-person costs throughout the U.S. health care system (in both the public and private sectors) will increase the cost of meeting longstanding federal commitments to seniors and people with disabilities. Together, these factors will drive up spending for the three largest domestic programs — Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. Limiting total federal spending to 21 percent of GDP despite these developments would have enormous implications for those programs as well as the rest of government.
- The federal government’s responsibilities have grown since 2000, with developments at home and abroad pushing spending above the average for earlier decades. These responsibilities include homeland security (in the aftermath of September 11, 2001); aid to veterans of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars (many of whom need health care and income support); education (with the federal government providing more resources to improve educational quality and outcomes); the Medicare prescription drug benefit (which Congress added in 2003); and health reform (which extends health coverage to tens of millions of Americans who would otherwise be uninsured and will increase federal spending, even though it will reduce the deficit).
- Spending for interest on the federal government’s debt also will be substantially higher in coming decades than it was during the past 40 years. By the end of 2010 — largely as a result of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the large Bush-era tax cuts, and the current severe recession — debt held by the public will be nearly twice as large (as a percentage of GDP) as in 2001, with a commensurate increase in interest costs.
Federal Spending Target of 21 Percent of GDP Not Appropriate Benchmark for Deficit-Reduction Efforts — Center on Budget and Policy Priorities