The weakest recovery in modern times.

Stinger · Feb 17, 2016

Gimmesometruth said:
Your source is correct, Obama signed the spending bills....that were created by the Bush admin. As I already showed, Obama was only responsible for an additional 6% for FY2009 spending. The fact that Bush left office without signing his own budget, a $3.1T budget he submitted in Feb 2008.

His budget submission was never even considered, the Democrats held off the budget, except of defense, until Obama was elected and his spending request could be included, The Democrats were in quite a tizzy because they didn't have to deal with Bush on the FY2009 budget. They did for 2008 and were held to a 9% increase in spending but in 2009 free to do as they please they increased it 18% and thus they took the last Republican deficit of just $161B to a whopping $1,400B patting themselves on the back for doing so.

Stinger · Feb 17, 2016

Gimmesometruth said:
Beyond the naivete of your argument's belief that the POTUS has no effect on monetary policy

Go learn the difference between fiscal policy of the Federal Government and monetary policy of the Federal Reserve.

, I will remind our Dixie conservative that since January of 2011 the GOP has held the purse strings

They have held half of them in the Congress and none of them in the White House, the Dems still had majority control until this year when the Republicans took the Senate.

(and I'm always very happy to watch your ilk simultaneously take credit for the constraint in spending since 2011).

Well the Democrats love to blame the Republicans for the sequester don't they. And yes the Republicans stood in the way of the Democrats always desire to spend spend spend.

So if you have anything to say about how the fiscal policy is a disaster over the last 7 years (of which the GOP has controlled the House the last 5 years)

Yes the Democrats were stopped from their 9% and 18% spending increases as in 2008 and 2009.

by all means tell us what the GOP wanted to do....or did....to cause a faster recovery.

They were of course obstructed by Reid and Obama, why do you claim they were able to do anything for the recovery?

PS... the "$161B to over $1,400B in just two years" were FY2008 & FY2009, both Bush budgets

See above, but it is quite laughable that you would assert Reid and Pelosi passed Bush budgets after they took over the Congress.

Gimmesometruth · Feb 17, 2016

Stinger said:
His budget submission was never even considered, the Democrats held off the budget, except of defense, until Obama was elected and his spending request could be included, The Democrats were in quite a tizzy because they didn't have to deal with Bush on the FY2009 budget. They did for 2008 and were held to a 9% increase in spending but in 2009 free to do as they please they increased it 18% and thus they took the last Republican deficit of just $161B to a whopping $1,400B patting themselves on the back for doing so.

You sure post a lot of unsubstantiated garbage, so I'm going to request the same thing I asked your con friend fenton, show that the $3.1T Bush budget was substantially different from what the House sent to be signed.

Stinger · Feb 17, 2016

Gimmesometruth said:
You sure post a lot of unsubstantiated garbage, so I'm going to request the same thing I asked your con friend fenton, show that the $3.1T Bush budget was substantially different from what the House sent to be signed.

Msg #225 I showed it was DOA, not even considered by the Democrats who held up passage of the spending bills until Obama could sign them, they were quite proud about it and very vocal about it calling them Bush budgets or a Bush deficit is complete and utter nonsense that the Democrats try to use to make Obama look like some deficit cutter.

You prove your claim and post where the Democrats were announcing they were passing his budgets and did so.

Gimmesometruth · Feb 17, 2016

Stinger said:
Go learn the difference between fiscal policy of the Federal Government and monetary policy of the Federal Reserve.

I know the differences, that wasn't the point, the point is the amount of influence the POTUS has on FED policy.

They have held half of them in the Congress and none of them in the White House, the Dems still had majority control until this year when the Republicans took the Senate.

"Half of them"? No, the GOP has controlled the House since 2011, they control spending. Show me what the GOP House was doing to enhance the recovery through fiscal action.

Well the Democrats love to blame the Republicans for the sequester don't they. And yes the Republicans stood in the way of the Democrats always desire to spend spend spend.

If you want to make the argument the sequester improved the chance of a faster recovery, be my guest, I'm still waiting on your examples of GOP efforts in speeding up the recovery...so far, you have offered nothing.

Yes the Democrats were stopped from their 9% and 18% spending increases as in 2008 and 2009.
They were of course obstructed by Reid and Obama, why do you claim they were able to do anything for the recovery?

You still cannot state what the GOP House since 2011 did to speed up the recovery.

See above, but it is quite laughable that you would assert Reid and Pelosi passed Bush budgets after they took over the Congress.

You have had 2 posts to be able to show what was substantially different between the Bush fy2009 budget and what he was supposed to either sign or veto. As usual, you cons won't say.

imyoda · Feb 17, 2016

KLATTU said:
The economy, by every metric, is better than when I came into office," Obama told Jon Stewart during his last appearance on "The Daily Show.

View attachment 67195287

Even Liberal Politifact was buying that BS.

"Our ruling

Obama said, "The economy, by every metric, is better than when I came into office."

That claim is too sweeping. Certain measures of wages and income, the poverty rate and the duration of unemployment are all worse now than they were when Obama "came into office."

The statement contains an element of truth but ignores facts that would give a different impression, so we rate it Mostly False.
Barack Obama tells Jon Stewart the economy, 'by every metric, is better' than when he took office | PolitiFact

Six million more Americans live in poverty today than when Obama was elected. Median household income (in real dollars) was no higher at the end of 2015 than at the end of 2007. The labor force participation rate — the share of working-age Americans who have a job or are looking for one — has sunk to 62.5 percent, a level not seen since the Carter administration. Since the recession ended, the economy has grown at an annual rate of just 2.2 percent. That is way below average for post-recession recoveries. Indeed, this has been the weakest economic recovery in modern times......
Far from anticipating the limping slog of the last seven years, the White House confidently forecast an economic recovery that would feature robust GDP growth of 4 percent or more. It never came close.

More Americans would be working, paychecks would be larger, and public confidence would be sturdier if the economy had bounced back as vigorously as expected. Obama thought he had a better way to fix a recession. Turns out he had a worse way. Live and learn, voters.

The Weakest Economic Recovery in Modern Times - Jeff Jacoby - Page 2

But I believe the operant word here is "recovery".............

Gimmesometruth · Feb 17, 2016

Stinger said:
Msg #225 I showed it was DOA, not even considered by the Democrats who held up passage of the spending bills until Obama could sign them, they were quite proud about it and very vocal about it calling them Bush budgets or a Bush deficit is complete and utter nonsense that the Democrats try to use to make Obama look like some deficit cutter.

You prove your claim and post where the Democrats were announcing they were passing his budgets and did so.

The truth is in the numbers, the difference between what Bush proposed and what Congress spent comes down mainly to SNAP and Unemployment Insurance spending:

US Federal Budget Spending Estimate vs. Actual for FY2009 - Charts

The other big difference was TARP, included in "other spending"

MTAtech · Feb 17, 2016

Stinger said:
He and his fellow Democrats did cutting Bush completely out not even presenting a budget to him.

"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.

Dems set for fight on Bush budget - USATODAY.com

No it is history to most economist, the unemployment rate shot to 10% and stayed over 9% for four years, the deficit surge to $1,400B just two years after the last Republican deficit of a paltry $161B. Economic growth has been practically stagnant.

Speak for yourself you have no idea what conservatives think and have shown you knowledge of the facts is lacking.

I believe the entire post above is complete revisionist history but I am only going to focus on the bold part above. Notice the below graph of spending during the Bush Administration plus spending from the Obama Administration. Much of the term of Bush the Republicans controlled the WH, The House and the Senate. They controlled the House during the whole period up until Jan. 2007. Notice how Bush kept spending down? Neither do I. So, I can't see how anyone can say that Obama went on a spending spree when Bush increased spending by 60%.

Stinger · Feb 17, 2016

MTAtech said:
I believe the entire post above is complete revisionist history but I am only going to focus on the bold part above. Notice the below graph of spending during the Bush Administration plus spending from the Obama Administration. Much of the term of Bush the Republicans controlled the WH, The House and the Senate. They controlled the House during the whole period up until Jan. 2007. Notice how Bush kept spending down? Neither do I. So, I can't see how anyone can say that Obama went on a spending spree when Bush increased spending by 60%.

Again your strawman arguement, spending is not dictated by the Administration, it is dictate by the Congress. 2008 and 2009 were DEMOCRAT budgets, and yes Obama was a Democrat Senator who supported and voted for the 2008 budge and the 2009 was held up until after the election and they had a Democrat President who spending request were included and sign into law by him, Obama. And here are the increases according the CBO historical budget data you can download in spreadsheet form.

2002 8%
2003 7%
2004 6%
2005 8%
2006 7%
2007 3%
2008 9%
2009 18%

The bolded were DEMOCRAT budgets.

Stinger · Feb 17, 2016

Gimmesometruth said:
The truth is in the numbers, the difference between what Bush proposed and what Congress spent comes down mainly to SNAP and Unemployment Insurance spending:

I could care less about CBO projections, they are historically inaccurate and not worth the paper they are written on. I care about RESULTS that is what matters.

The other big difference was TARP, included in "other spending"

TARP was paid back, and Obama tried to use it to make his budget numbers look better and got caught at it.

The fact is blaming the 2009 $1,400B deficit on Bush is utter nonsense and excuse making. But then they are still blaming him for the economy 7 years later.

Stinger · Feb 17, 2016

Gimmesometruth said:
I know the differences, that wasn't the point, the point is the amount of influence the POTUS has on FED policy.

Not much, the Board of Governors protects their own turf.

"Half of them"? No, the GOP has controlled the House since 2011, they control spending.

Not they do not, the Senate has just as much say on spending as the House and when the WH and the Senate are controlled by one party that party has the majority control of the budget and spending.

If you want to make the argument the sequester improved the chance of a faster recovery, be my guest, I'm still waiting on your examples of GOP efforts in speeding up the recovery...so far, you have offered nothing.

I don't defend arguments I haven't made as desperate as you are to make them for me. The deficit came down because of sequester. The Democrats, including a vocal Obama, try to take credit for the deficit falling while at the same time blaming Republicans for the sequester, blowing it out both holes.

You still cannot state what the GOP House since 2011 did to speed up the recovery.

How could they when the Democrat controlled Senate would not take up any of the many pieces of legislation they sent to them and Obama vowed veto's on any bills that would.

How about pointing out what the party that had majority control did? THAT is the more salient point don't you think?

Now show me where the Democrats took the Bush budget and sent it to committee and the committees voted in favor and they took it to the floor and the Democrats all voted for it.

MTAtech · Feb 17, 2016

Stinger said:
Again your strawman arguement, spending is not dictated by the Administration, it is dictate by the Congress. 2008 and 2009 were DEMOCRAT budgets, and yes Obama was a Democrat Senator who supported and voted for the 2008 budge and the 2009 was held up until after the election and they had a Democrat President who spending request were included and sign into law by him, Obama. And here are the increases according the CBO historical budget data you can download in spreadsheet form.

2002 8%
2003 7%
2004 6%
2005 8%
2006 7%
2007 3%
2008 9%
2009 18%

The bolded were DEMOCRAT budgets.

Conveniently you omit 2010-2015. Let's look at those:

Spending $ billion nominal
2010...$3,457.08 bil
2011...$3,603.06 bil
2012...$3,536.95 bil
2013...$3,454.65 bil
2014...$3,506.11 bil
2015...$3,688.29 bil

In percentage terms:
2010 -1.7%
2011 4.2%
2012 -1.8%
2013 -2.3%
2014 1.5%
2015 5.2%

2009 was an unusual year with sharp stimulus spending to mitigate the Great Recession coupled with additional social spending which are automatic.

Also, my argument is a strawman? I don't think that word means what you think it means.

Stinger · Feb 17, 2016

MTAtech said:
Conveniently you omit 2010-2015. Let's look at those:

There were not budges, just continuing resolutions and that left the spending at the level of those HUGE increases. Neither Reid nor Pelosi could produce budgets and even the Democrats would not take up the couple Obama sent because of even more spending increases.

2009 was an unusual year with sharp stimulus spending to mitigate the Great Recession coupled with additional social spending which are automatic.

Oh I see, now instead of blaming Bush for the deficit increases now that you see he had nothing to do wtih them suddenly it was just an "unusual year", there was nothing unusual about the Democrats wanting their HUGE increase in spending. I documented their glee in taking over the budget and how they were going to lock Bush out of the process. It was their Keynesian "trickle-up" response and it failed miserably.

Also, my argument is a strawman? I don't think that word means what you think it means.

Completely and appropriately used.

The fact remains 2008 and 2009 were DEMOCRAT budgets and to lump all the budgets together and call them ALL Bush budgets and Bush deficits is just the left trying to divorce themselves of their actions and their results. Republican budget and economic performance then look from 1997- 2007, 2008 and to 2015 it's Democrats so let's get Obama out of the way and let the Republican fix it and get us back to the days like 2003-2007 with it's 52 months of full employment and drastically falling deficits heading to surplus again and solid GDP growth.

MTAtech · Feb 17, 2016

Stinger said:
There were not budges, just continuing resolutions and that left the spending at the level of those HUGE increases. Neither Reid nor Pelosi could produce budgets and even the Democrats would not take up the couple Obama sent because of even more spending increases.

That's irrelevant, since I was quoting actual spending.

MTAtech · Feb 17, 2016

Stinger said:
The fact remains 2008 and 2009 were DEMOCRAT budgets and to lump all the budgets together and call them ALL Bush budgets and Bush deficits is just the left trying to divorce themselves of their actions and their results. Republican budget and economic performance then look from 1997- 2007, 2008 and to 2015 it's Democrats so let's get Obama out of the way and let the Republican fix it and get us back to the days like 2003-2007 with it's 52 months of full employment and drastically falling deficits heading to surplus again and solid GDP growth.

What was Bush's budget request for 2008 and 2009, because that's what matters. Who controlled Congress isn't really relevant unless the Congress radically changed what was requested by the President. As we see from the years that Republicans controlled Congress and the WH, spending rose radically. The notion that Republicans a protectors of money is clearly a myth.

Gimmesometruth · Feb 18, 2016

Stinger said:
I could care less about CBO projections, they are historically inaccurate and not worth the paper they are written on. I care about RESULTS that is what matters.

Um, I didn't use ANY cbo numbers, those were the numbers contained in the budget Bush submitted versus actual spending.....from a rw website.

TARP was paid back, and Obama tried to use it to make his budget numbers look better and got caught at it.

Um....okay....but this was a discussion about 2009 spending, so I have no idea how MORE spending, TARP or anything else, is supposedly shown to make Obama "look better". I think you are losing track of your argument.

The fact is blaming the 2009 $1,400B deficit on Bush is utter nonsense and excuse making. But then they are still blaming him for the economy 7 years later.

I believe right from the start I said I wasn't necessarily "blaming" Bush for the massive declines in revenue, but as I have shown, what he proposed and what was spent are pretty much in alignment.

Gimmesometruth · Feb 18, 2016

Stinger said:
Not much, the Board of Governors protects their own turf.

"Turf"? Um, the POTUS appoints them, they owe their "turf" to the POTUS, the POTUS chooses them for their policy.

Not they do not, the Senate has just as much say on spending as the House and when the WH and the Senate are controlled by one party that party has the majority control of the budget and spending.

No, all spending provisions start in the House, not the Senate and we have had divided govt since 2011. Why do you think we have not had a proper budget process for years?

I don't defend arguments I haven't made as desperate as you are to make them for me. The deficit came down because of sequester. The Democrats, including a vocal Obama, try to take credit for the deficit falling while at the same time blaming Republicans for the sequester, blowing it out both holes.

No, you made the argument that fiscal policy, in this case counter-cyclical spending, has been a "disaster", and yet you are arguing now that sequester, the limiting of spending, is the better way.....so explain to us how reducing spending has caused a faster recovery.

How could they when the Democrat controlled Senate would not take up any of the many pieces of legislation they sent to them and Obama vowed veto's on any bills that would.

I'm all eyes and waiting for these examples of recovery legislation that the GOP proposed.....I keep asking, yet you say you won't make that argument.....so which is it, are you going to make that argument or just keep teasing us with "well the Senate wouldn't listen...."

How about pointing out what the party that had majority control did? THAT is the more salient point don't you think?

I think that still is the point, you reject what the Dems did before 2011, but after that there was no "majority party", the House was not going to do anything to help Obama, the economy or the nation.

Now show me where the Democrats took the Bush budget and sent it to committee and the committees voted in favor and they took it to the floor and the Democrats all voted for it.

Um, I already did that in the last posts where I showed you the vast similarities in the Bush fy2009 proposal and actual spending plus the very small additions by Obama.

Stinger · Feb 19, 2016

MTAtech said:
What was Bush's budget request for 2008 and 2009, because that's what matters.

Ignored, because that is what matters.

Who controlled Congress isn't really relevant unless the Congress radically changed what was requested by the President.

They didn't change it they ignored it and were quite boisterous about it as I have already demonstrated.

As we see from the years that Republicans controlled Congress and the WH, spending rose radically.

ROFL NOTHING like the Democrats and the Republicans were bringing down the deficit as they did so to that paltry $161B. The Democrats didn't even come CLOSE to the WORST Republican deficits.

Stinger · Feb 19, 2016

Gimmesometruth said:
"Turf"? Um, the POTUS appoints them, they owe their "turf" to the POTUS, the POTUS chooses them for their policy.

Ahhhh no, the President NOMINATES them, the Senate confirms them. Just as with the SCOTUS, people are fallaciously claiming the President APPOINTS, he does not, he NOMINATES, the Senate has the final say-so as to who gets the appointment.

No, all spending provisions start in the House

Totally false, did you ever take Civics 101. The Senate has equal footing with the House on spending and can pass spending bills and send them to the House for consideration. You might want to go and read the Constitution again.

No, you made the argument that fiscal policy, in this case counter-cyclical spending, has been a "disaster", and yet you are arguing now that sequester, the limiting of spending, is the better way.....so explain to us how reducing spending has caused a faster recovery.

I don't defend arguments I do not make.

I'm all eyes and waiting for these examples of recovery legislation that the GOP proposed.....I keep asking, yet you say you won't make that argument.....so which is it, are you going to make that argument or just keep teasing us with "well the Senate wouldn't listen...."

25 House-Passed Jobs Bills Stuck in the Democratic-Run Senate | Speaker.gov

I think that still is the point, you reject what the Dems did before 2011, but after that there was no "majority party", the House was not going to do anything to help Obama, the economy or the nation.

I don't reject it, I point out how it totally failed and yes there was majority control of government by the Democrats till law year. And the House has passed budgets and offered to sit down with Obama, and he refuses. They have passed the legislation on the link and they refuse.

YOU tell me what Obama has done, what the Democrats did.

Um, I already did that in the last posts where I showed you the vast similarities in the Bush fy2009 proposal and actual spending plus the very small additions by Obama.

No you did not, I showed you where they declared it DOA and waited until he was out of office to pass one, their own which they BRAGGED how they maneuvered to cut Bush out and then went on to increase spending 18% and create a $1,400B deficit.

Gimmesometruth · Feb 19, 2016

Stinger said:
Ahhhh no, the President NOMINATES them, the Senate confirms them. Just as with the SCOTUS, people are fallaciously claiming the President APPOINTS, he does not, he NOMINATES, the Senate has the final say-so as to who gets the appointment.

Pedantic distraction,
a FED nominee owes his nomination to a POTUS, he/she wouldn't be there in the first place without it, they are chosen for their positions by the POTUS, just as the POTUS chooses a SCOTUS nominee for their ideology, the Senate can reject or accept, but never initiate, ergo the nominee owes far more to the POTUS than the Senate, the nominee IS the POTUS's man/woman. Yellen is doing what Obama wanted, not what individual Senators want.

Totally false, did you ever take Civics 101. The Senate has equal footing with the House on spending and can pass spending bills and send them to the House for consideration. You might want to go and read the Constitution again.

They are not going to get anywhere without House passage or revenue appropriation.

I don't defend arguments I do not make.

That is ironic, since you do so in the very next counterargument:

25 House-Passed Jobs Bills Stuck in the Democratic-Run Senate | Speaker.gov

Oh wait, I have seen this specious argument of "jobs bills" put forward by Boehner in all sorts of varying quantities, too bad none had any real intention of creating jobs.

But since you were not going to argue about what the GOP house was going to do to cause a faster recovery BEFORE you started doing so, maybe you ought to go back to plan A in not trying argue that the GOP house was going to work for a faster recovery. Perhaps you should just keep on with how sequesters and cutting spending in a time of lowered demand is a path to faster recovery.

I don't reject it, I point out how it totally failed

OK, now there is some serious logic headstanding, beyond the facts that the ARRA was VERY positive in its effects.

and yes there was majority control of government by the Democrats till law year.

Whut?

And the House has passed budgets and offered to sit down with Obama, and he refuses.

Sure, Ryan can't even get the divided House to pass anything beyond CR's, let alone a "budget".

They have passed the legislation on the link and they refuse.

Again, I wouldn't put any stock in your "25 jobs bills", it is pure fantasy.

YOU tell me what Obama has done, what the Democrats did.

Since 2011? Not a lot, but then that is why the ball is in your court on GOP efforts to cause a faster recovery. You bring up the "25" myth from the do nothing Congress as something real, but it is nothing more than a charade. The idea that increasing visas for foreign workers is considered a jobs bill by you would be funny if it wasn't so sad.

No you did not, I showed you where they declared it DOA and waited until he was out of office to pass one, their own which they BRAGGED how they maneuvered to cut Bush out and then went on to increase spending 18% and create a $1,400B deficit.

You can keep on ignoring the data I spoon fed you showing that the differences in what Bush proposed and what was spent exclusive of what was added by Obama were not significant. Further, the idea that the amount of revenue shortfall would be different if the $3.1T Bush budget had passed ABSOLUTELY intact is a bit insane, but then that is the sort of weirdness we see from Southern conservatives on a daily basis. I just with you guys would go ahead and leave the union for good.

Stinger · Feb 22, 2016

Gimmesometruth said:
Pedantic distraction

No legal fact.

They are not going to get anywhere without House passage or revenue appropriation.

Specious statement. They are not going to get anywhere unless BOTH houses of the Congress passing.

Your claim that only the House can originate spending bills is totally fallcious, either House can propose and pass a spending bill and send it to the other house. Only bill RAISING REVENUE, taxes, fees, duties, etc. must originate in the House. Obamacare is being sued because that spending originated in the Senate and not the house theoritically making the entirety of Obamacare unconstitional because it contained new TAXES. But then by what you are saying then SURELY you believe Obamacare is unconstitutional since it is a HUGE spending bill too.

Oh wait, I have seen this specious argument of "jobs bills" put forward by Boehner in all sorts of varying quantities

They are not specious, they were passed, but since you are aware of them then don't ask me to cite them again.

But since you were not going to argue about what the GOP house was going to do to cause a faster recovery BEFORE you started doing so, maybe you ought to go back to plan A in not trying argue that the GOP house was going to work for a faster recovery. Perhaps you should just keep on with how sequesters and cutting spending in a time of lowered demand is a path to faster recovery.

Maybe you should try to explain how the HUGE Democrat spending increases put us on a path to a faster recovery........oh it didn't.

OK, now there is some serious logic headstanding, beyond the facts that the ARRA was VERY positive in its effects.Whut? Sure, Ryan can't even get the divided House to pass anything beyond CR's, let alone a "budget". Again, I wouldn't put any stock in your "25 jobs bills", it is pure fantasy.

Beyond the fact the the ARRA was a total failure and in fact a disaster and set the stage to keep us from entering a full recovery, besides the fact that in the fist meeting with the Republicans to discuss the budget Obama slammed them down with his "there was an election and I won", besides the fact that the Republicans passed budget which the Senate would not even take up along with not offering one of their own, besides the fact that was just a partial list of legislation which each in it's own part would have helped to create new jobs and put people back to work...................you can choose to live in our fantasy or not, it won't change the facts.

Since 2011?

Since 2010 what have they done? Nothing. And the ball has been in THEIR court until this year.

You can keep on ignoring the data

I deal with the reality, not CBO crystal ball projections which are not "data" and which are historically inaccurate. The budget has been under Democrat control since FY2008. They cut Bush out completely for 2009 and they could have curtailed spending and passed recessions at any time they wanted when they saw the deficit exploding on them and they refused to do so.

BTW, this is my secondary forum that I poke into when my other goes down for some reason as they did the other cay, they are back up and fill my time so my getting back here will be pretty spotty in future unless they go down again.

The weakest recovery in modern times.

Stinger

Stinger

Gimmesometruth

Dr. Tongue’s Evil House of Pancakes

Stinger

Gimmesometruth

Dr. Tongue’s Evil House of Pancakes

imyoda

Gimmesometruth

Dr. Tongue’s Evil House of Pancakes

MTAtech

Stinger

Stinger

Stinger

MTAtech

Stinger

MTAtech

MTAtech

Gimmesometruth

Dr. Tongue’s Evil House of Pancakes

Gimmesometruth

Dr. Tongue’s Evil House of Pancakes

Stinger

Stinger

Gimmesometruth

Dr. Tongue’s Evil House of Pancakes

Stinger