100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: Way To Go, O ... | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
Don'tcha just love it when a plan comes together? The 'craps tell us that they're gonna 'spend us into prosperity' ... riiiiiiiight. In whose lifetime? Not ours, that's for sure. We're in an economic death spiral unless the intentionally-imposed self-destructive policies that this regime insists on pushing down our collective national throat are repealed in their entirety. It won't get a bit better so long as these thugs remain in office to continue their version of Sherman's 'Marching Through Georgia' on a national scale.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/apr/13/personal-income-falls-32-during-obamas-15-months/ Income falls 3.2% during Obama's term By Joseph Curl Real personal income for Americans - excluding government payouts such as Social Security - has fallen by 3.2 percent since President Obama took office in January 2009, according to the Commerce Department's Bureau of Economic Analysis. For comparison, real personal income during the first 15 months in office for President George W. Bush, who inherited a milder recession from his predecessor, dropped 0.4 percent. Income excluding government payouts increased 12.7 percent during Mr. Bush's eight years in office. "This is hardly surprising," said Douglas Holtz-Eakin, an economist and former director of the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office. "Under President Obama, only federal spending is going up; jobs, business startups, and incomes are all down. It is proof that the government can't spend its way to prosperity." |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
msharmony
on
Mon 04/12/10 10:42 PM
|
|
lol, at a milder recession,, he inherited a 128 billion dollar SURPLUS....
also,,,, some interesting information at http://www.nationalpriorities.org/Federal%20Budget%20Timeline or research it at the OMB website,,, LIKE a household income or budget, the US budget is done in ADVANCE,, not during the budget year...this means that up until October of 2009 the budget was still owned by BUSH (with the exception of the stimulus) HE and OBama can share whatever failures or successes have occured since OBama officially took office in January of 2009. We have yet to see where we will be by the end of 2010. |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
heavenlyboy34
on
Mon 04/12/10 10:30 PM
|
|
lol, at a milder recession,, he inherited a 128 billion dollar SURPLUS....a momentum that could have continued to slightly increase average income Actually, the myth of the Clinton "surplus" has been disputed and disproven by a number of people, including economists Gary North and Thomas Woods, and Army Major S. Leon Felkins. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
msharmony
on
Mon 04/12/10 10:50 PM
|
|
lol, at a milder recession,, he inherited a 128 billion dollar SURPLUS....a momentum that could have continued to slightly increase average income Actually, the myth of the Clinton "surplus" has been disputed and disproven by a number of people, including economists Gary North and Thomas Woods, and Army Major S. Leon Felkins. disputed maybe,, disproven,,,that can always be debated,,,probably by using or omitting the term 'projected' which is all a budget can really do |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
lol, at a milder recession,, he inherited a 128 billion dollar SURPLUS.... also,,,, some interesting information at http://www.nationalpriorities.org/Federal%20Budget%20Timeline or research it at the OMB website,,, LIKE a household income or budget, the US budget is done in ADVANCE,, not during the budget year...this means that up until October of 2009 the budget was still owned by BUSH (with the exception of the stimulus) HE and OBama can share whatever failures or successes have occured since OBama officially took office in January of 2009. We have yet to see where we will be by the end of 2010. Can I get you more Kool-Aid® while I'm up? The' willing suspension of disbelief' won't save you, or us, from the planned destruction he has actively undertaken against our nation's economy and system of government. 'Change we can believe in' ... yeah. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
msharmony
on
Mon 04/12/10 10:48 PM
|
|
wow,, paranoid much,,,personal and off topic too,,,
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
wow,, paranoid much,,,personal and off topic too,,, Gee. You must be a 'psi-chology' major. Irrelevant. What IS relevant to your claim of how 'diligent' the people in charge of our national budget are is the following (below) " ... LIKE a household income or budget, the US budget is done in ADVANCE,, not during the budget year...this means that up until October of 2009 the budget was still owned by BUSH (with the exception of the stimulus) HE and OBama can share whatever failures or successes have occured since OBama officially took office in January of 2009. We have yet to see where we will be by the end of 2010. ... " THIS is relevant: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0410/35647.html Congress sees no budget rush Congress is poised to miss its April 15 deadline for finishing next year’s budget without even considering a draft in either chamber. Unlike citizens’ tax-filing deadline, Congress’s mid-April benchmark is nonbinding. And members seem to be in no rush to get the process going. Indeed, some Democratic insiders suspect that leaders will skip the budget process altogether this year — a way to avoid the political unpleasantness of voting on spending, deficits and taxes in an election year — or simply go through a few of the motions, without any real effort to complete the work. Regan Lachapelle, a spokeswoman for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), would go only so far as saying that the budget “is on a list of things that are possible for this work period” — a reference to the window that opens when members roll back into town Monday and closes when they leave around Memorial Day. So much for 'due diligence' and 'conscientious performance of duty' ... "Change we can believe in" ... right. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
lol, at a milder recession,, he inherited a 128 billion dollar SURPLUS....a momentum that could have continued to slightly increase average income Actually, the myth of the Clinton "surplus" has been disputed and disproven by a number of people, including economists Gary North and Thomas Woods, and Army Major S. Leon Felkins. disputed maybe,, disproven,,,that can always be debated,,,probably by using or omitting the term 'projected' which is all a budget can really do If you have no objective standard with which to measure, then your arguments collapse upon themselves and become nothing more than uninformed opinion. I would encourage you to put more thought and research into your positions. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
msharmony
on
Tue 04/13/10 02:04 AM
|
|
no problem,,my posts usually do contain plenty of thought,,,,as an example,, here is part of an article from CNN in 2000
'The federal budget surplus for fiscal year 1999 was $122.7 billion, and $69.2 billion for fiscal year 1998. Those back-to-back surpluses, the first since 1957, allowed the Treasury to pay down $138 billion in national debt. ' CNN seemed to agree there was a surplus,, but I am sure others would be able to come up with reasons they DISAGREE(such as the ss fund and whether it is a revenue ,as it has BEEN counted and continues to be). Because the budget is projected though,and because those responsible for the budget get to define the boundaries of what is counted and how and because only those actually doing the numbers could ever know for sure whether the numbers actually came up as reported,,,my statement regarding the surplus being a 'myth' still stands,, disputed maybe,, disproven,,,that can always be debated,,,probably by using or omitting the term 'projected' and debating what 'should' constitute a surplus another reference from the congressional budget office http://www.cbo.gov/budget/budget.shtml I always respect your knowledge and your point of view,, but I would encourage you not to assume others dont put research , thought,and sometimes just common sense deductions, into their posts,,,,, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I apologize if my last post was harsh or offensive in any manner, I just wanted to share some 'foundation' for my previous posts...
Its late and Im tired,,,so good evening,,, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
no problem,,my posts usually do contain plenty of thought,,,,as an example,, here is part of an article from CNN in 2000 'The federal budget surplus for fiscal year 1999 was $122.7 billion, and $69.2 billion for fiscal year 1998. Those back-to-back surpluses, the first since 1957, allowed the Treasury to pay down $138 billion in national debt. ' CNN seemed to agree there was a surplus,, but I am sure others would be able to come up with reasons they DISAGREE(such as the ss fund and whether it is a revenue ,as it has BEEN counted and continues to be). Because the budget is projected though,and because those responsible for the budget get to define the boundaries of what is counted and how and because only those actually doing the numbers could ever know for sure whether the numbers actually came up as reported,,,my statement regarding the surplus being a 'myth' still stands,, disputed maybe,, disproven,,,that can always be debated,,,probably by using or omitting the term 'projected' and debating what 'should' constitute a surplus another reference from the congressional budget office http://www.cbo.gov/budget/budget.shtml I always respect your knowledge and your point of view,, but I would encourage you not to assume others dont put research , thought,and sometimes just common sense deductions, into their posts,,,,, We are a house of cards and a hurricane is on its way.. Talking about the 90s is nice for posterity sake, but the reality of today is about to hit us hard. We are on pace for our debt to equal 90% of GDP by 2020.. That is the reality.. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
no problem,,my posts usually do contain plenty of thought,,,,as an example,, here is part of an article from CNN in 2000 'The federal budget surplus for fiscal year 1999 was $122.7 billion, and $69.2 billion for fiscal year 1998. Those back-to-back surpluses, the first since 1957, allowed the Treasury to pay down $138 billion in national debt. ' CNN seemed to agree there was a surplus,, but I am sure others would be able to come up with reasons they DISAGREE(such as the ss fund and whether it is a revenue ,as it has BEEN counted and continues to be). Because the budget is projected though,and because those responsible for the budget get to define the boundaries of what is counted and how and because only those actually doing the numbers could ever know for sure whether the numbers actually came up as reported,,,my statement regarding the surplus being a 'myth' still stands,, disputed maybe,, disproven,,,that can always be debated,,,probably by using or omitting the term 'projected' and debating what 'should' constitute a surplus another reference from the congressional budget office http://www.cbo.gov/budget/budget.shtml I always respect your knowledge and your point of view,, but I would encourage you not to assume others dont put research , thought,and sometimes just common sense deductions, into their posts,,,,, We are a house of cards and a hurricane is on its way.. Talking about the 90s is nice for posterity sake, but the reality of today is about to hit us hard. We are on pace for our debt to equal 90% of GDP by 2020.. That is the reality.. can you please provide a reference,,,as looking at the CBO website the deficit in 2020 will be 793 and the GDP will be 22,544 or accumatively (over the next ten years) 7263 to 187,719..... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Heh-heh-heh ... keep on whistlin' past that graveyard ...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Heh-heh-heh ... keep on whistlin' past that graveyard ... nah,, perhaps some devil communist is out to get YOU,, but Im on pretty good terms in this life,,, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Why, even someone as skeptical as my own self knew DAT ... it's so OBVIOUS you're hooked up ...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Why, even someone as skeptical as my own self knew DAT ... it's so OBVIOUS you're hooked up ... kewl |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You say that like it's a good thing ...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
xan u ever post anything without using an attack?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Kings_Knight
on
Tue 04/13/10 09:45 AM
|
|
You mean I should follow YOUR 'genteel' style? Forget it. I can also spell 'can' and 'can't' correctly.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income falls 3.2% during Obama's term I find it amusing that conclusions are jumped to like this without considering ... I don't know, the past 8 years of economic turmoil under W and the massive amount of spending that's gone into the Iraq War ... non-profitable spending, might I add. The guy has been in office for just over a year and we all know how long it takes at least our own government to do anything. Instead of taking the major news organizations (read "propaganda machines") at face value, use it as a starting point to do your own research and make your own decision. Don't get me wrong, I hold no love specifically for Obama (though I voted for him to keep McCain-Palin out of office), but I do think if you're not going to gripe about what George Bush left us with, then why are you going to gripe about Obama? Because he's a convenient target that Bush would not allow himself to be? Because he's not stifling public opinion and listening to your phone calls? |
|
|
|
|
