The fact that you attempt to continue to spread the lies of this Administration about job creation is just bizarre. The only thing you have to back up your assertions are biased sources or the scumbags themselves who have been proven to have cooked the numbers. Obama and that scumbag Pelosi lied to the American people to get their pork spending package passed in Feb of 2009 to create millions of jobs. They lied. They knew it would never create the jobs they said it would. And our children and grandchildren are stuck with the bill of your parties failure. The people have taken notice.

[quote=Redux;635430]The electorate is on to you. Come Nov, your party is screwed.

And I don't even want the Republickins to be in charge. :lol2:

Considering the near complete meltdown of the American economy, we are now doing quite well. It should have been much worse. And, as Obama warned us when he took office, it will take about ten years to fix this mess.

Hank Paulson told Congressmen of a economic malaise so serious that (according to reporters outside) Congressmen left the room “white faced”. Paulson, et al told eight major bank presidents earlier (on Friday) that they had eight hours to save the American economy. He was not kidding. Eight years of a political agenda was that destructive.

Then we got a new president with economic programs to bluntly avert that meltdown. As a major paper from the American Economists Association noted last year (using studies of some 114 previous recessions in the OECD), this type of recession created by financial and fiscal mismanagement takes about 12 quarters to recover. Compared to two to four quarters for a traditional recession. The created damage by economic mismanagement is traditionally that severe. Economic history says the damage is so severe as to take that long to recover.

But those are numbers. Extremists do not listen to numbers. Profanity justified by a political agenda is what Limbaugh encourages. The fact that eight years of financial fraud was made legal somehow gets forgotten in their rhetoric.

Based upon how serious the recession should have been. Based upon how close we came to a complete economic meltdown - due to eight years of neocon economics including tax cuts for the rich - due to zero growth for 2000 through 2009 . We are damn lucky to still have a working economy. We came that close to a complete 1929 meltdown. Because extremists who ignore facts and who are told to take cheap shots will not admit what their 'welfare to the rich' economics has done to America.

This is the first decade in 70 years that America has seen no growth. The average American income fell 2% in that period. While the richest incomes rose massively. Numbers so large that nobody is quite sure how large. That has only happened once in American history. Just before the 1929 stock market crash. But George Jr neocons are smarter? No wonder profanity and cheap shots are posted. Then others will not notice extremist politics nearly destroyed the entire American economy.

How strange that extremists will ignore this reality that starts:
U.S. economy took a dive in the 2000s, a lost decade for workers
The actual article describing zero American growth during George Jr's tenure is from the Washington Post on 1 Jan 2010:
For most of the past 70 years, the U.S. economy has grown at a steady clip, generating perpetually higher incomes and wealth for American households. But since 2000, the story is starkly different.
The past decade was the worst for the U.S. economy in modern times, a sharp reversal from a long period of prosperity that is leading economists and policymakers to fundamentally rethink the underpinnings of the nation's growth.

Somehow we should believe extremists because this mess was created by their political agenda AND because their spokemen include Sarah Palin?

Thank god we all still have jobs because informed thinkers finally took hold the reins. And did the massive spending necessary to minimize the damage. It should have been as bad as "Mission Accomplished" - another disaster created by the same political agenda.

So what do extremists do? Do they apologize for the neocon economics that nearly destroyed the American economy? First time since WWII that America has seen virtually no growth. So extremist post cheap shots even at Obama.

“Cheap shots in the name of liberty is no vice”. Even Goldwater would not say what extremists believe.

Oh, yea everything is just rosey!

One year later, political battle rages over stimulus' effectiveness

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-f...,6738826.story

Eight years of your wacko extremism nearly destroyed everything. Anything bad is directly traceable to that neocon agenda that you promoted repeatedly with lies, insults, and denials. But then you are doing exactly what Rush Limbaugh tells his disciples to preach. Cheap shots. And not admitting that your politics created these messes - including the protection of Enron accounting.

Even Goldwaster did not say "Cheap shots in the name of liberty is not a vice". But you do.

You know that argument is complete bullshit. The reason Obama's budget is so high is because of mandatory spending (Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, interest) and not discretionary spending (military plus other). The trend of higher discretionary spending was started by *suspense* George!

Graph of discretionary spending from 1977- 2008 (note, Obama's 2009 budget is a bit higher than Bush's 2008 but the 2010 budget and those after will be lower).
http://www.nationalpriorities.org/Di...ng%201977-2007


2003 prediction of government spending:
http://www.cato.org/pubs/tbb/tbb-0306-15.pdf

Dude, it is so high because of the false Stimulus Bill and bailouts.

Your first link does not reflect that.

Cato is a huge fan of mine, but 2003 is a bit dated.

Not satisfied taking cheap shots in the Current Event board. Now TheMercenary has move on to taking cheap shots in the Technology board.
The internet is over!.

A discussion of net neutrality - he has nothing to contribute but more Limbaugh insults.

Ted is on a roll, what did he rant?

These are the people who cheered when Cheney said, "deficits don't matter". And who now will not admit the George Jr years were the first decade in seventy without growth. Welfare to the rich. They were ordered what to believe. And post it with profanity and insult everywhere in the Cellar.

Quick, someone tell me if Ted said anything of importance. I am going with not.

As you read through it see how much refers to the "Recovery Act".

http://www.onlineforextrading.com/bl...t-broken-down/

Somewhere around 70% of the federal budget is for defense, entitlements (SS, Medicare), other mandatory spending (Veterans, TANF, Unemployment Insurance, Medicaid/SCHIP....) and another 5 % is interest on the debt.....and for the first time in seven years, Iraq/Afghanistan spending is included in the budget.

Ringing In The Stimulus New Year, Washington DC-Style
 

Perhaps a little comedy will help . . .

Link

Lets have a late night class on the Recovery Act.

The total package was under $800 billion (but lets use ballpark figure of $900 billion cuz its late and easier to divide by three):
-- $300 billion in tax cuts (personal and business)
-- $300 billion in social safety net program increases (COBRA extension, UI extensions, etc)
-- $300 billion in grants, contracts, etc. (jobs)

Now remember that this total $900 billion is spread over (half of) FY 09, FY 10 and FY 11.

Using the ballparks again....$300 billion/yr over 3 years (in reality, much less in 09, more than half in 10 and the rest in 11)

Now take out one=third for the tax cuts - $100 billion/yr (lost revenue, which adds to the deficit)

That means about $200 billion/year additional spending out of a budget of over $3 trillion.

Now take out the social safety net spending (unless you want those folks and their kids on the streets).

And you're left with about $100 billion/year in spending on grants/contracts through DOE, DOT, HUD, DoEd, etc.....less than 5% of a $3+ trillion budget.

And this was offset in part by cuts in other programs in DOE, DOT, HUD, DoEd, etc.

To suggest the Recovery Act is a major contributor to the budget or deficits is just not reflected in the numbers....ballpark or real.

Make sense?

That is why I added my own notes. 2009 Obama will spend more than any president in history but that number will be lowered after that. Not that it will have much effect since most of the budget is going to mandatory spending and the military.

I posted that article because the predictions they made are coming true. The point was that medicare, social security, and other health benefits are going to go out of control and that is obviously starting to happen and nothing suggests that anything is going to change soon.

Until mandatory spending is reformed, every president from here on out will be forced to spend even more then their predecessor.