Report: Obama to tell us some jobs are shovel-ready, after all
President Obama, late September 2010, to the New York Times: “[T]here’s no such thing as shovel-ready projects” when it comes to public works.
President Obama, about a year earlier (off the record to the Times’ David Brooks): “Shovel-ready jobs” don’t exist.
President Obama, June 13, 2011, at a meeting of his jobs council: “Shovel-ready was not as…uh…shovel-ready as we expected.”
CBS News, August 27, 2011, in a report on President Obama’s forthcoming plan to boost job creation:
The President wants to spend big on the nation’s roads and bridges, starting with a two-year, $109 billion spending package that’s been stalled between the House and the Senate — but which he argues — will put tens of thousands of people back to work quickly. (emphasis added)
How much is $109 billion over two years — and how much impact is it likely to have? Well, the 2009 stimulus has disbursed $20.9 billion toward infrastructure, with the number of jobs created as a result peaking at 30,597 in the third quarter of 2010, according to Recovery.gov. (It’s now at 23,109.)
How’s that working out for you?
Do you think the president will explain why the shovels are standing at the ready this time, or (my prediction) will he just act as if he never said all those things in the past?
Note: This post has been edited to correct the spending information from Recovery.gov.
– By Kyle Wingfield
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2013 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
140 comments Add your comment
Rafe Hollister
August 29th, 2011
12:52 pm
More ideology from Obama and nothing that will help the economy. This is an ideological depression we are experiencing. He knows that less government spending, more tax relief, less regulation will get us out of this hole, but that would repudiate what he has been telling us since 2008.
He wants to be right more than he wants to be successful.
JDW
August 29th, 2011
12:53 pm
Hey Kyle, you missed some of the article. For example while you poo-poo the whole “shovel ready” bit you forgot to mention this…
“When Moody’s studied the 2009 stimulus package, infrastructure spending rated high. For every dollar spent, $1.44 was returned to the economy. Infrastructure projects have a large bang for the buck because they employ a lot of people, they require a lot of material and inputs, so a lot of economic activity is generated by those projects,” said Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody’s.”
Of course we all know that our nations bridges and roads don’t need any work Just speed up when you go under the bridges (17th Street for example) and maybe the falling debris won’t hit you. Besides, aren’t all those potholes good for the economy…the auto repair industry loves them.
Rafe Hollister
August 29th, 2011
12:54 pm
There is one shovel ready job ahead of us Kyle, burying Obama in 2012.
Rafe Hollister
August 29th, 2011
12:59 pm
JDW, the 17th Street Bridge was recently built, obviously shoddy work, as it is falling apart. More government efficiency needed not more money to spend.
JF McNamara
August 29th, 2011
1:04 pm
We could always just cut taxes.
Get on with it
August 29th, 2011
1:11 pm
Regulations, regulations, regulations. Get rid of regulations, get rid of Obama Care, get rid of political interests and them hiring their own friends for their stimulus government run offices and you will see the economy come back.
Government does not create jobs, shovel ready or not. The business world creates jobs and the government red tape, not knowing what Obama Care and the new 106,000 regulations that will come into affect because of Obama Care are what is keeping jobs from coming back. That and the fact that this government pays companies to take jobs overseas by over taxing these companies with the regulations its unreal. If anyone thinks Im joking Im not. This is being done on purpose, dont tell me its not.
joe
August 29th, 2011
1:13 pm
He’ll never admit to saying that, just like he never admitted saying raising the debt limit was “un-American” as a member of congress in 2006…he has selective amnesia no doubt! If you need a job or a better job, vote him out in 2012..otherwise, prepare to struggle for another 4 years.
Kyle Wingfield
August 29th, 2011
1:13 pm
Yep, JDW, I did leave that part out — because, as I’ve explained on here numerous times, those estimates rely on the same kinds of econometric models that told us the stimulus would keep unemployment below 8 percent.
These models measure inputs, not outcomes, and assume that a given amount of input will produce a given amount of output.
Kyle Wingfield
August 29th, 2011
1:14 pm
If the inputs don’t produce such outputs, for whatever reason, those models won’t tell us so.
MarkV
August 29th, 2011
1:17 pm
Kyle,
Are you really that shallow-minded, to write a column based on the non-issue of an expression? The President, just like everybody, sometimes uses the common expression ”shovel-ready” to indicate projects that are ready in the sense of an immediate need, while at other time speaks about the reality that there is always a delay between appropriation of the money and getting everything ready for the “shovels” to start moving. Think how often you are guilty of the same in your life. Or is the purpose of your column just to give the usual jackals a reason to start insulting the President?
War Eagle
August 29th, 2011
1:21 pm
The only shovel ready job is the remainder of what is left after one of his teleprompter speeches. In 2012, Let’s bury him and the other Taxo crats who want to give freedoms to the illegals for making it over here. Then we can bury hamas and their terrorists.
JDW
August 29th, 2011
1:22 pm
BTW, Kyle, lets talk more good news. Have you noticed the economic news since the Repugnican induced Debt Ceiling “Crisis” has been trending up. For example:
New jobs in July 117,000 to the good…compare that with the last month of Duhbya’s reign…598,000 jobs LOST.
Consumer confidence up from 57.6 to 59.5. I know still low but when you compare it to end of the last Republican Administration…when it hit a NEW ALL TIME LOW of 38 it seems like Happy Days Are Here Again.
Noticed Consumer Spending rose .8% last month. Gallup says that equates to $74 in spending per capita up from $64 in January of 2009 or an increase of 15%+
And finally the stock market. S&P is at about 1200 right now that is up around 9% from the “Crisis” lows and a staggering 60% since January of 2009.
Tell me again why we should go back to the days of Repugnican rule?
JKL2
August 29th, 2011
1:22 pm
When you hear “shovel ready” just think payoffs for friends and family. It doesn’t matter if anything gets accomplished as long as somebody gets paid.
mike
August 29th, 2011
1:24 pm
And what exactly have you or your fellow party members have done to create jobs? In the state of Georgia the only ones who have gotten jobs as been the governor’s family. One thing about all this, people have to learn to adjust and compromise. Considering the last couple of years, that is something the repubs and those tea people know nothing about. From here on, I have better things to do than read this dribble everyday.
Dan
August 29th, 2011
1:25 pm
Shouldn’t that be shovel ready Number 2, in honor of what they are shoveling
meno
August 29th, 2011
1:28 pm
JDW you should know Kyle’s like every other con–only that information that supports what they already believe counts. Either that or Kyle’s position is that surely, if info led to a bad conclusion before then it, in no way, can be thought of as reliable ever.
Truth Squad
August 29th, 2011
1:35 pm
Gee, why no mention of Republican obstruction to full implementation of the stimulus? We know that more people would be working on projects in states such as Florida, New Jersey, and Ohio, but for their Republican governors.
The bottom line is this country needs to modernize it’s infrastructure for the 21st Century. The more Republicans obstruct, the worse they will do in 2012. There is zero reason why the United States of America should not have the best best infrastructure on the planet. Laugh at “shovel-ready” if you’d like, but laughing isn’t enough, you must explain why Republicans can’t seem to be able to get anything but more roads, and toll roads built when this country faces greater infrastructure needs.
Infrastructure use to be a bipartisan effort since there are no such thing as Republican bridges, or Democratic levees. To think that Republicans are ok letting school buses ride over bridges that are crumbling is unconscionable.
The American people know that budget cuts do not produce addition jobs, they kill jobs. Almost every family has a story where budget cuts lead to unemployment for someone in that family. The government taking money out of the economy now will only hurt the economy and it will not matter which party holds the presidency as it will require a huge stimulus to keep us out of the Depression.
JDW
August 29th, 2011
1:36 pm
Kyle wrote, “These models measure inputs, not outcomes, and assume that a given amount of input will produce a given amount of output.”
Not sure you are right on this one, the quote is WAS returned not ESTIMATED but no matter. Here is some info on MEASURING RESULTS:
“A recent study by Alan Blinder, the president of Bill Clinton’s Council of Economic Advisers, and Mark Zandi, the co-founder of Moody’s Economy.com, simulated the “macroeconomic effects of the government’s total policy response” to the recent economic downturn and found that “the effects of the fiscal stimulus alone appear very substantial, raising 2010 real GDP by about 3.4%, holding the unemployment rate about 1½ percentage points lower, and adding almost 2.7 million jobs to U.S. payrolls.”
http://www.economy.com/mark-zandi/documents/End-of-Great-Recession.pdf
Of course the way you measure results in this case is to simulate the effect. While you may not like that approach, mostly I suspect because you don’t like the results, it works. Don’t believe it…check out my 1:22 post for more empirical evidence.
getalife
August 29th, 2011
1:37 pm
Kyle,
How about acting like an American and write your party should work with our President to focus on recovering the 15 million jobs w lost.
After we recover those jobs, you get your cuts. Not SS and Medicare.
Deal?
Kyle Wingfield
August 29th, 2011
1:38 pm
JDW: I think all you really did @ 1:22 is refute the idea that the debt-ceiling brinkmanship itself somehow damaged the economy.
MarkV: And are you really that willing to ignore the difference between the reason given for the new infrastructure spending — to create new jobs quickly — and what you just wrote?
meno: LOL at your 1:28, given what I wrote about the models we’re talking about.
Kyle Wingfield
August 29th, 2011
1:45 pm
JDW: In that very document you link at 1:36 — which I re-consulted before writing my OP — Zandi and Blinder explain that their findings, including the ones you listed specifically, are based on modeling and not measuring results (from page 4):
“Quantifying the economic impact
“To quantify the economic impacts of the fiscal stimulus and the financial-market policies such as the TARP and the Fed’s quantitative easing, we simulated the Moody’s Analytics’ model of the U.S. economy under four scenarios….
“Estimating the economic impact of the policies is not an accounting exercise, but an econometric one. It is not feasible to identify and count each job created or saved by these policies. Rather, outcomes for employment and other activity must be estimated using a statistical representation of the economy based on historical relationships, such as the Moody’s Analytics model.”
I do not doubt the inherent difficulty of “identify[ing] and count[ing] each job created” by policies like the stimulus. Here’s what I do have a problem with: People who treat these simulations as the concrete, final word on the matter as opposed to an estimate.
An estimate, I might add, that doesn’t much persuade those still struggling in the allegedly stimulated real economy that the stimulus was a roaring success.
Darwin
August 29th, 2011
1:47 pm
Government does not create jobs? Tell that to the workers out at the Lockheed Martin plant.
JDW
August 29th, 2011
1:50 pm
Kyle wrote,” I think all you really did @ 1:22 is refute the idea that the debt-ceiling brinkmanship itself somehow damaged the economy.”
Now see I think I made the point that Republicans led by Duhyba decimated the economy and after a lot of hard work it is in recovery. A recovery that was delayed by the recent Republican created “crisis”.
However the hole that was dug by the end of Duhbya was quite large and despite the significant progress we are at best halfway home.
I say again why would we entrust the same people with the same ideas to take us back to the same place?
getalife
August 29th, 2011
1:52 pm
Spin it Kyle.
Write the gop should work with our President and the cons will come to scream at you.
That is American politics today.
Bradley
August 29th, 2011
1:54 pm
Kyle, do you not think it’s important to invest in America’s crumbling infrastructure, or only when it’s not a black democratic president doing it?
getalife
August 29th, 2011
1:56 pm
Nation build America instead of Afghanistan and Iraq.
There is a good idea.
Kyle Wingfield
August 29th, 2011
1:56 pm
Bradley: What I wrote is that the recent past indicates doing so is not a very effective way of boosting employment and the economy.
Whether some specific infrastructure projects have merit is a different question.
Kyle Wingfield
August 29th, 2011
1:58 pm
getalife: Why not say the president should work with the GOP on its agenda? Wait, lemme guess…
getalife
August 29th, 2011
2:00 pm
Kyle,
Um, because he is a Dem President.
JDW
August 29th, 2011
2:00 pm
Kyle wrote,
“I do not doubt the inherent difficulty of “identify[ing] and count[ing] each job created” by policies like the stimulus. Here’s what I do have a problem with: People who treat these simulations as the concrete, final word on the matter as opposed to an estimate.”
No what you do is ignore the estimate all together and then impugn the very methods that created the benefit, in this case the stimulus. Do we know beyond a shadow of a doubt that the program increased the GDP exactly 3.4% and added precisely 2.7 million jobs…no. Do we know that +/- 10% that is in the ballpark…yes. However in spite of that you would and have ignored the estimate altogether and continue to try and create the illusion that the program was an utter failure.
And then you say stuff like this…
“An estimate, I might add, that doesn’t much persuade those still struggling in the allegedly stimulated real economy that the stimulus was a roaring success.”
See you leave out the part where Republicans left us in the toilet in 2008 and great strides have been made since then. Instead you continue to pound on the fact that we are not fully recovered. True enough, but we are recovering which is a damn sight better than sitting on our hands and doing nothing would accomplish.
Instead you support the idea of trusting the same people with the same ideas that got us into this fix doing the same thing all over again.
Hillbilly D
August 29th, 2011
2:01 pm
What the powers that be should do is just tell the truth. We’re in for a bumpy ride the next several years. Might as well deal with it.
getalife
August 29th, 2011
2:03 pm
Kyle,
Did you forget he crushed mcain and won?.
He wants to focus on recovering the 15 million jobs lost in the w collapse.
Write the gop should work with him.
Focus on jobs.
JDW
August 29th, 2011
2:03 pm
@Kyle…see you did it again “:Bradley: What I wrote is that the recent past indicates doing so is not a very effective way of boosting employment and the economy.”
In fact the recent past indicates that +/- 10% the method grew GDP an extra 3.4% and added 2.7 million jobs.
saywhat?
August 29th, 2011
2:04 pm
getalife: Why not say the president should work with the GOP on its agenda? Wait, lemme guess…
OOOOH! OOOOH ! I can answer that one! Because the GOP agenda sent the economy into the toilet in the first place?
saywhat?
August 29th, 2011
2:05 pm
too slow. getalife came up with the answer first.
getalife
August 29th, 2011
2:07 pm
“Because the GOP agenda sent the economy into the toilet in the first place?”
Much better than mine.
Out of here.
Bradley
August 29th, 2011
2:10 pm
Kyle, It’s not a silver bullet, but you can’t tell me it won’t help in the least bit. A $109B will help employment a little, but more importantly it will keep people working in that field employed and it helps solve our nation’s failing infrastructure situation. It’s a win-win… or do you think ir would be better to free that $ up for greedy corporate America so they can continue to sit on profits and not hire?
Kyle Wingfield
August 29th, 2011
2:18 pm
getalife: Right, I forgot — the 2010 elections never happened.
Bradley: Of course I can’t say it “won’t help in the least bit.” Of course there will be *some* impact if $109 billion is spent. The question is whether that’s the best use of the money — both in terms of encouraging jobs/economic growth specifically, and in the bigger picture as well — right now. I think it isn’t.
The General Feeling
August 29th, 2011
2:23 pm
Okay, so it’s a win win. So just do the dang work we expect you to do instead of telling us it’s stimulus or revovery and it’s gonna create or save a gazillion jobs. The federal government is charged with building and maintaiing our country’s infrastructure in the name of national commerce…. so just do your dang jobs and STFU.
I don’t tell cry out every time I make a widget.
Road Scholar
August 29th, 2011
2:28 pm
Since you have vision to a parallel universe that says the stimulus didn’t work, please provide what would have happened w/o the stimulus. I agree that it did not reduce unemployment to 8 %. But what would the unemployment rate have been? Especially if all those already employed workers who worked on these stmulus projects were fired or laid off due to no projects?
Yes, just maybe the economy was in worse shape than ESTIMATED! Can you prove the estimate was sound? Based on whatever model you chose? An estimate is an educated guess!
In the past most, if not all the recessions were marked by increased public works funding which proved successful for the economy, if not lowering the unemployment rate. Would you rather spend money on unemploymnt benefits for an extended time periods or spend it on infrastructure? What do you get with unemployment as to a lasting legacy? A lazier, less eductacated workforce? With public works, while spending money on projects it puts those unemployed into the job market in addition to having a structure or road constructed. In addition, the workers may also learn a new skill; is a new skill learned under unemployment benefits?
Under Pres. Bush, infrastructure spending was ignored, unless you count the rebuilding of Iraq and Afganastan in your response.
There are few truley “shovel ready” projects since the fed, state, and local governments cannot afford to advance the preliminary engineering on projects they do not expect to go to construction in the immediate future.Only maintenance projects or design build projects could “immediately” go to contract for construction. There is alag time to finalize the designs, get approved environmental clearances, and to buy any additional land needed for construction.
Since the conserves are hell bent on doing nothing, what do you think the next two years will look like under the “more tax cut” mentality? Rosy future?
JDW
August 29th, 2011
2:32 pm
So Kyle, where else can you spend 1$109 billion, create lots of jobs guaranteed and drive enormous benefit for society at large.
From The Economist, they tend to run a bit ahead of the curve. I saw this almost a year ago…
“Roads and bridges are undermaintained. America’s rail system is inadequate and in need of repair and expansion. Electrical grids are weak in many places and could be turned into smart grids in others to facilitate a more efficient use of energy. Water and sewer systems in cities around the country are aging and vulnerable. Broadband coverage in many metropolitan areas is pitiful relative to that elsewhere in the developed world. And so on. The country could usefully spend several hundred billion dollars a year on such investments, for years to come.”
And summary
“Given the benefits of infrastructure spending, and the fact that there’s almost no downside to at least proposing a major programme of investments, I continue to be surprised by the lack of such a plan. I don’t get it. Administration officials keep wringing their hands trying to figure out how to squeeze a tiny package of small business tax credits through Congress, while Americans complain every day about the obvious shortcomings in their local public infrastructure. ”
Seems to me any good recovery plan should include infrastructure as a component. My complaint with the Administration is what took so long….
http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2010/09/fiscal_policy_0
MarkV
August 29th, 2011
2:32 pm
Kyle,
Why didn’t you just write: “The President wants to spend big on the nation’s roads and bridges, starting with a two-year, $109 billion spending package …”
I think that is wrong, because ….” , instead of quibbling about how the expression “shovel ready” had been used.
Obozononics
August 29th, 2011
2:34 pm
JDW, is there some reason that you “believe” the democrats and not the republicans? Are you so stupid that you think they are different? Idiots that believe that are the reason we have Obozo, and since yo9u Bush bash at every turn let me bother you with some FACTS. How about keeping the Bush tax cuts in place, I thought you liberals hated that. Then there is the Patriot Act which the left cried about but Obozo expanded on and kept the rest of it in place… Then there was the cry that Bush was spending like a drunken sailor, then what do you call spending 3 times as much as Bush in half the time. Looking at the FACTS you should hate Obozo,
Road Scholar
August 29th, 2011
2:35 pm
JDW: Do you live on the south side of ATL in the burbs?
contrarian
August 29th, 2011
2:38 pm
Yay! More fodder for the ‘the AJC hate liberals’ crowd. Or not. I can’t keep up these days. Is the AJC completely void of conservative voices or not? Anyone? Anyone? Bueller? Bueller?….
JD in Marietta
August 29th, 2011
2:40 pm
Kyle, don’t listen to these libs giving you grief for being a conservative. All they can do is defend this inept, inexperienced President who is more qualified to teach law at Emory than he is to run this country. Its obvious he’s in over his head and has a cabinet with the least amount of private sector experience compared to past admininstrations….and it SHOWS.
Ayn Rant
August 29th, 2011
2:42 pm
The natural and immediate step to take after a financial disaster like 2008 is to make massive investment in infrastructure in order to maintain jobs and consumer spending power, and to attract private capital investment.
Borrowing money to finance infrastructure projects is just good business sense. The debt should be paid off over time by those who benefit from the infrastructure improvements. All successful businesses finance capital improvements by borrowing. “Pay as you go” is a primitive economic notion no longer practiced in developed countries.
There weren’t any worthwhile shovel-ready projects for the timid stimulus effort in 2009-10, and there aren’t any now. Federal and state governments do not plan ahead. There are many ideas but no blueprints for worthwhile improvements.
The stimulus spending of 2009-11 was barely sufficient to hold unemployment below 10%. It was financed with borrowed capital, but it was not an investment that promised future returns. The revival of stimulus spending now faces the same obstacle: no worthwhile shovel-ready projects.
So, stimulus spending didn’t jolt the economy out of stagnation, and tax cuts and extensions of tax cuts didn’t jolt the economy out of stagnation. We’ve run out of politically-acceptable ideas for reviving our economy.
Let’s not repeat the same old ineffective measures of stimulus spending and tax cuts. New approaches are needed.
Joe The Plumber too.
August 29th, 2011
2:44 pm
getalife and saywhat are just worried about who will recharge the ebt card every month, they should get off the democractic plantation, I did over thirty years ago and have never looked back.
That Black guy
August 29th, 2011
2:50 pm
Warren Buffett, hypocrite
Last Updated: 11:51 PM, August 28, 2011
Posted: August 29, 2011
This one’s truly, uh … rich: Billionaire Warren Buffett says folks like him should have to pay more taxes — but it turns out his firm, Berkshire Hathaway, hasn’t paid what it’s already owed for years…
Obvious question: If Buffett really thinks he and his “mega-rich friends” should pay higher taxes, why doesn’t his firm fork over what it already owes under current rates?
Read more: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/editorials/warren_buffett_hypocrite_E3BsmJmeQVE38q2Woq9yjJ#ixzz1WRfndkaQ
Do as I say, not as I do maybe?
Lil' Barry Bailout (Revised Downward)
August 29th, 2011
2:54 pm
“Report: Obama to tell us some jobs are shovel-ready, after all”
——-
Fool us once, shame on you…
Who believes the lying Idiot Messiah any more? Besides his receptacles and other useful idiots, obviously.
This proposal is just the latest excuse for bigger government, more spending, and more payoffs for the union thugs.
Gm
August 29th, 2011
3:03 pm
Did you see the roads and bridges during the Hurricane? they are 19th 20th Century, President Obama has been trying to get something done on this since he took office, but our hypocrites hateful tea party people have held their party leaders hostage””’
Please tea party idiots come out the 20th Century
Joe The Plumber too.
August 29th, 2011
3:10 pm
hey gm, who was in control of both house for the first two years years of barry the boy blunders reign? And you call tea party members idiots?
Tiberius - Your lightning rod of hate!
August 29th, 2011
3:14 pm
There is so much partisan gnashing to teeth on this subject that it’s hard to know where to begin.
Did this President promise shovel-ready jobs and not deliver? Yes.
Did he backtrack on that terminology? Yes.
Did the Stimulus create anywhere near the jobs the administration said it would? No.
Did it SAVE anywhere near the jobs they said it would? Yes. (However, LOCAL governments should have provided for their own teachers, fire and police rather than having the country go into debt for their lack of cojones in raising taxes)
Does spending $1 in stimulus funds provide for $1.44 in spending? No, especially if you go into debt in order to spend that $1. Given the size and length of time to pay off our debt, it is a net loser when all is said and done.
Does our infrastructure need attention? Yes.
Will $109 billion cover it? Not even close.
Is there a plan to responsibly pay for this $109 billion in new stimulus? Not even close.
Prognostication? DOA unless the GOP can find $109 billion in associated cuts to offset.
morris wise
August 29th, 2011
3:14 pm
Four hundred billion in frozen Libyan assets invested wisely could put every unemployed American back to work.
We put the lives of our boys on the line and deserve the spoils of war.m
JD in Marietta
August 29th, 2011
3:16 pm
GM, you don’t know your A– from the so called holes in the roads and bridges that you speak of. All repairing roads and bridges are going to do for the economy is put a few state road contractors(CW Matthews in GA for example) to work for half a year…and they’ll staff up and hire temp labor. That’s it. And thats Obamas solution for the economy…fix a couple potholes? The man knows nothing, does nothing, except spend money we dont have on fantasy projects that we dont need.
Lil Bushie Bailout (Revised Upward)
August 29th, 2011
3:36 pm
JDW, the 17th Street Bridge was recently built, obviously shoddy work, as it is falling apart. More government efficiency needed not more money to spend.
______________________________________________________________
But Rafe, that would require regulation. Contards — talking out of both ends.
Lil Bushie Bailout (Revised Upward)
August 29th, 2011
3:38 pm
Let’s bury him and the other Taxo crats who want to give freedoms to the illegals for making it over here.
__________________________________________
Do you mean like ole Saint Ronnie did?
Lil Bushie Bailout (Revised Upward)
August 29th, 2011
3:40 pm
“I would say the best moment of all was when I caught a 7.5 pound largemouth bass in my lake.” –Bush on his best moment in office, interview with the German newspaper Bild am Sonntag, May 7, 2006
JDW
August 29th, 2011
3:44 pm
@Obozononics, well lets take a look,
First you wrote “is there some reason that you “believe” the democrats and not the republicans? Are you so stupid that you think they are different?”
Empirical evidence…since Reagan every Republican has preached smaller government, lower taxes and fiscal responsibility. In each case they have dramatically ramped spending, cut taxes and exploded the budget. Clinton on the other hand balanced the budget and created the greatest period of economic success in history. As for me I got fooled for a while. I voted for Reagan and Bush 1, then I learned.
Then your wrote….”Idiots that believe that are the reason we have Obozo, and since yo9u Bush bash at every turn let me bother you with some FACTS.”
First off, you need to review my 1:22, things are far far better now than they were. Are we done yet no, should we go back…HELL NO.
Then you wrote…”How about keeping the Bush tax cuts in place, I thought you liberals hated that.”
Agreed, big mistake, he should have let the whole mistake expire.
“Then there is the Patriot Act which the left cried about but Obozo expanded on and kept the rest of it in place”
Mostly agree, he did scale back some of the more egregious policies but could have done more.
And lastly you wrote
“Then there was the cry that Bush was spending like a drunken sailor, then what do you call spending 3 times as much as Bush in half the time. ”
I think you are confused take a look at the real numbers
Fiscal Year Owner Spending +(-)(In Billions)
2002 Bush $2,011 +6.00%
2003 Bush $2,160 +7.41%
2004 Bush $2,293 +6.16%
2005 Bush $2,472 +7.81%
2006 Bush $2,655 +7.40%
2007 Bush $2,730 +2.82%
2008 Bush $2,931 +7.36%
2009 Bush $3,517 +19.99%
2010 Obama $3,720 +5.77%
2011 (Est) Obama $3,833 3.04%
2012 (Est) Obama $3,754 -2.06%
Average Bush increase 8.12%. Average Obama increase 2.25%. Again the problem is not Obama but recovering from the Duhbya effect.
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy11/pdf/hist.pdf
Lastly you wrote:
“Looking at the FACTS you should hate Obozo,”
I think you need to review your assumptions…the FACTS are clear. Does he do everything right, no…would I vote for someone better yes. However Romney, Bachmann, Cain, Perry et al don’t rate a seconds consideration. Huntsman, maybe, but he will fail the Repugnican purity test so I won’t get the chance to decide.
JDW
August 29th, 2011
3:46 pm
@Road Scholar, I am in Buckhead.
Tiberius - Your lightning rod of hate!
August 29th, 2011
3:48 pm
JD, you’re spot on.
The only thing government can do in the private sector is:
A. Create temporary jobs.
B. Slow down job recovery.
That’s it. The only permanent jobs government creates are those in the public sector. So they’d better have a way to pay for this stimulus with offsets or it isn’t gonna fly.
JDW
August 29th, 2011
3:50 pm
@LBB…”the 17th Street Bridge was recently built, obviously shoddy work, as it is falling apart. More government efficiency needed not more money to spend.”
I believe the responsiblity would lie with the PRIVATE CORPORATION that did the work not the government whose specs were not followed.
Tiberius - Your lightning rod of hate!
August 29th, 2011
3:53 pm
JDW, since it was the Republican-led CONGRESS that balanced the budget during Clinton’s term, you should be all for those days, shouldn’t you?
And why should an artificially-created dot.com bubble that burst under Bush be considered a great economic achievement?
get@yahoo.com
August 29th, 2011
4:02 pm
Kyle,
Don’t be silly.
Presidential elections.
I guess that is a no on writing the gop should work with our President.
Figures.
getalife
August 29th, 2011
4:04 pm
Ooops.
JDW
August 29th, 2011
4:05 pm
@Tiberius…”JDW, since it was the Republican-led CONGRESS that balanced the budget during Clinton’s term, you should be all for those days, shouldn’t you?”
Yet more Repugnican HORSE HOOHEY. The two key policies that led to a balanced budget were taxes at the proper level and PAY AS YOU GO.
The tax increase was passed in August of 1993 and PAY GO which was passed in 1990 and extended in 1993. The Republicans took the Congress in 1994 and proceeded to do zippo until Duhbya. Then they repealed both the tax levels and PAYGO which led directly to the problem we have today.
ODD OWL
August 29th, 2011
4:08 pm
Kyle Wingfield and all the right wing, neo-national socialist Republicans continue to scape goat and blame President Obama for what the Bush/Cheney Admin. perpetrated. Bush/Cheney’s deregulated, unbridled economic policies are the only reason the unemployment rate went beyond 8%. Now i guess Wingfield and other neo-con Republicans are claiming that President Obama and the Democrats are to blame for the Unemployment rate going beyond 8%. The unemployment rate is 9.1% today. If we Democrats use the same flawed logic that Kyle Wingfield and other Republicans are using, i guess President Obama is responsible for increasing the unemployment rate by 1.1%. The Bush/Cheney flawed, supply-side, trickle down economic policies are the only reason we have a 9.1% unemployment rate. Most White Americans have gotten over their gullible-naivate’ and are not buying into the Republican’s scape goat and blame the Democrats philosophy. The Republicans must find themselves a new shtick.
Rafe Hollister
August 29th, 2011
4:08 pm
JDW, private firms built the bridge, hired by their bought and paid for government friends. Gov owes it to the taxpayers to make sure we get what we pay for. Buckhead, that figures.
Ayn Rant, have you ever seen non defense government spending you oppossed?
Someone asks how we could create more jobs with the 109B. That is pretty simple, leave the money in the hands of those who earned it. Maybe they will take Mama out to eat, buy junior a new bicycle, or stock up on incandescent light bulbs. Any of this would create more jobs than writing a check to CB Matthews Construction.
Tiberius - Your lightning rod of hate!
August 29th, 2011
4:14 pm
JDW, you can try to dismiss the success of the GOP CONGRESS by giving credit to everybody else, the but the FACT remains that Congress controls the budgetary process, NOT the President, and has for at least 50 years.
Any credit or blame on spending goes DIRECTLY to whoever controls CONGRESS.
Tiberius - Your lightning rod of hate!
August 29th, 2011
4:16 pm
“Bush/Cheney’s deregulated, unbridled economic policies are the only reason the unemployment rate went beyond 8%.”
Not intended to be a factual statement.
But a 10 on the “I don’t know a damned thing about the effects of government policies” meter.
MarkV
August 29th, 2011
4:17 pm
Kyle: “The question is whether that’s the best use of the money — both in terms of encouraging jobs/economic growth specifically, and in the bigger picture as well — right now. I think it isn’t”
So, Kyle, why don’t you give us your expert economic analysis why it isn’t?
carlosgvv
August 29th, 2011
4:23 pm
He can easily propose going with these “shovel ready” jobs, knowing the Tea Party wackos in Congress will never agree on funding. Then, at election time, he can blame them for our Nation’s large unemployment problem.
MarkV
August 29th, 2011
4:29 pm
“Any credit or blame on spending goes DIRECTLY to whoever controls CONGRESS.”
The Republicans control Congress. Therefore, they are to blame for the deficit.
Tiberius - Your lightning rod of hate!
August 29th, 2011
4:32 pm
Of course he can, carlos, because with this President, it’s ALWAYS about the next campaign.
Style over substance has been the watchword of this administration from Day 1.
His problem is that very few, except the Kool-aid drinkers like you, are buying his schtick anymore.
Rafe Hollister
August 29th, 2011
4:33 pm
MarkV
You are right, the Dems controlled Congress from 2006-2010, which, I believe was when this outrageous spending spree most recently occured.
Tiberius - Your lightning rod of hate!
August 29th, 2011
4:33 pm
MarkV, once again you fail Civics 101.
The GOP controls the HOUSE – not the SENATE. Both houses make up CONGRESS.
Nice try.
Rafe Hollister
August 29th, 2011
4:35 pm
Style over substance, is the same as, ideology over reality.
Tiberius - Your lightning rod of hate!
August 29th, 2011
4:35 pm
Rafe, don’t forget that the GOP controlled both the House and Senate during the first 6 years of the Bush administration.
They are not blameless in overspending, either.
MarkV
August 29th, 2011
4:38 pm
Tiberius – Your lightning rod of hate! @4:33 pm: “Nice try.”
Thank you. Only applying your logic.
MarkV
August 29th, 2011
4:40 pm
Tiberius – Your lightning rod of hate! @4:33 pm: “Nice try.”
The GOP controls the HOUSE and, through the use of the fliibuster, the SENATE.
Tiberius - Your lightning rod of hate!
August 29th, 2011
4:40 pm
MarkV, you could apply logic if you had any, which you do not.
As pointed out (again) CONGRESS consists of two house – the House of Representatives and the Senate. The GOP only controls the House. The Dems control the Senate.
Therefore your claim of “logic” does not apply at all.
Poor effort again on your part.
Tiberius - Your lightning rod of hate!
August 29th, 2011
4:42 pm
“The GOP controls the HOUSE and, through the use of the fliibuster, the SENATE.”
And as soon as you can come up with ONE spending bill of any significance that the GOP filibustered, I’ll agree with you.
Just one of any significance, MarkV.
Rafe Hollister
August 29th, 2011
4:43 pm
Tiberius, I know that Dubyah and his Rep congress spent money like it was growing on trees, I was just refuting MarkV, who is trying to prove Oblamer innocent of this mess.
They want to establish the fact that the current president is never responsible for what happens during his administration. They know that when Barry leaves and a conservative takes over the economy is going to improve. Once it does, let me be the first to predict, ole Barry is going to pop up like a jack in the box and say, “IT WAS ME, WHAT DONE IT.”
getalife
August 29th, 2011
4:43 pm
In the real world, we have to recover 15 million jobs to get back to normal unemployment.
President Clinton added 23 million jobs so it is a achievable goal.
Now the gop refuse to put country first and work with our President to achieve this easy goal.
So what should our President do to add 15 million jobs know it alls?
Tiberius - Your lightning rod of hate!
August 29th, 2011
4:45 pm
“So what should our President do to add 15 million jobs know it alls?”
Resignation would be a good first step.
getalife
August 29th, 2011
4:47 pm
Anybody else?
Tiberius - Your lightning rod of hate!
August 29th, 2011
4:49 pm
getaclue, we’ve already discussed what should be done on earlier threads.
Please go back to the Children’s Table where you’re not wanted less than here.
Lil Bushie Bailout (Revised Upward)
August 29th, 2011
4:50 pm
“So what should our President do to add 15 million jobs know it alls?”
Resignation from the Republicans (party over country) would be a good first step.
________________________________________________________
Fixed that for you, buddy.
getalife
August 29th, 2011
4:51 pm
ti,
Hush puppy.
getalife
August 29th, 2011
4:53 pm
Any other adults have the solution to my question?
Rafe Hollister
August 29th, 2011
4:54 pm
Slick Willie never created 23 million jobs. He created a unpaid job for Monica, but the dot com bubble that he so luckily presided over created most of those jobs. He had nothing to do with it. But, give him credit, he didn’t blow it like Oblamer would have. Barry would have used that properity to spend 4-5 Trillion to advance his left wing agenda.
The most jobs Barry could create would be several million if he repealed Obamacare.
getabrain
August 29th, 2011
4:56 pm
never knew the insanity of dementia could be so funny. liberals are a laugh a minute.
getalife
August 29th, 2011
4:56 pm
rafe gives us rw talking points.
Anybody else?.
getalife
August 29th, 2011
4:59 pm
“Resignation from the Republicans (party over country) would be a good first step.”
Winner.
Tiberius - Your lightning rod of hate!
August 29th, 2011
5:01 pm
Forget it getaclue. We discuss adult solutions here. Not bumper-sticker slogans. Ours take more than one line to explain. We use paragraphs and analysis for our solutions.
Which is why we are not going to waste out time with you, because you just won’t get it.
Tiberius - Your lightning rod of hate!
August 29th, 2011
5:04 pm
Oh, and we’re just not into discussing complex, intelligent solutions with five year olds, getaclue.
Rafe Hollister
August 29th, 2011
5:05 pm
getalife
Yeah I guess you got me. I will give you a clue, those points are written throughout history. Ignore them at the peril of the country. Spend more than you take in and you incur debt which will eventually paralyze the country.
People say Oblamer is inexperienced and incompetent and can never bring us out of this mess. I disagree, the answers are out there. Just find the cook book and read the receipes left by Kennedy and Reagan and even Clinton. It doesn’t take an experienced cook to follow a receipe. Barry however prefers ideology over sure fire solutions.
Lil Bushie Bailout (Revised Upward)
August 29th, 2011
5:08 pm
Our President Clinton created 23 million jobs. He helped foster and create an environment that let the dot com bubble create all of those jobs. His policies and a congress that worked with him had everything to do with it. But, give him credit, he didn’t blow it like Cowboy Bushie would have. Bushie would have used that prosperity to spend 4-5 trillion to advance his right wing agenda, and put us in another war while ignoring the Saudis that were the people that flew the planes into the Twin Towers.
The most jobs Bushie could have created would be several million if he hadn’t created Medicare Part D.
I Report (-: You Whine )-: Thee Magnificent!!! mmm, mmmm, mmmmm! Just sayin...
August 29th, 2011
5:15 pm
gitmo- Where are you coming up with 15 million jobs from obozo’s “plan,” is that a Biden number?
The last 20 billion only created 2 jobs, both of them were with Acorn.
Am I missing something?
I Report (-: You Whine )-: Thee Magnificent!!! mmm, mmmm, mmmmm! Just sayin...
August 29th, 2011
5:18 pm
After having watched the last few years of this corrupt, cheesy, simple minded third world lunatic in action at the White House, I’ve actually come to respect what Klinton did for the country while he was in office.
Kinda.
MarkV
August 29th, 2011
5:27 pm
Tiberius – Your lightning rod of hate! @4:42 pm
Wrong question. The control does not have to be applied to be effective.
Gm
August 29th, 2011
5:31 pm
JD in Marietta
Your thinking is why Georgia is considered the backwood state of America, others states took the stimulas money and created jobs even your hypocrite redneck Perry took money, I tell you what lets see how many of these hypocrites tea party fakes line up to get government money to rebuild their homes.
I bet Sara,Hannity, Rush are not going to condem the tea party hypocrite for taking the money they will continue to spread hate against the President of the United States while there banks accounts get full from angery low self estem whites”””’
JDW
August 29th, 2011
5:34 pm
@Tiberius
“JDW, you can try to dismiss the success of the GOP CONGRESS by giving credit to everybody else, the but the FACT remains that Congress controls the budgetary process, NOT the President, and has for at least 50 years.
Any credit or blame on spending goes DIRECTLY to whoever controls CONGRESS.”
Yet again, completely and utterly false. The President starts the budget process by submitting an initial budget, Congress debates and may or may not change it, then the President either signs it or not.
The President exerts at least, and in my opinion more control than Congress because he defines the starting and to a large extent ending point. Congress has more control over some of the line items, but not the total amount of spending. In fact most if not all budgets end up almost exactly at the total the President started with and I can’t remember an override of a budget veto.
Tiberius - Your lightning rod of hate!
August 29th, 2011
5:35 pm
From The Boston Herald: “Obama’s uncle arrested in Framingham on drunken driving charge”
And you gotta love this quote from the story: “Obama Onyango told cops he wanted to “call the White House” after he was nabbed for OUI Aug. 24 after nearly plowing his SUV into a police cruiser.”
Yeah, call the White House guys!
Class act, these Obamas. The aunt gets government housing and then seeks “asylum”, while the uncle drinks and drives.
Meanwhile, the Prez and the Missus live it up on Martha’s Vineyard and don’t do jack-all about the country.
Tiberius - Your lightning rod of hate!
August 29th, 2011
5:41 pm
“The President exerts at least, and in my opinion more control than Congress because he defines the starting and to a large extent ending point.”
Which is why you’ll never understand the budgetary process, JDW, in your zeal to blame everything EXCEPT the Dems and this President.
Here’s some clarification on the process, JDW, since you clearly don’t know a thing about it. The President (usually – not in the case of this clueless President as evidenced by his budget being rejected by the Senate 97-0 earlier this year) consults with CONGRESSIONAL LEADERS about what can get through first. THEN he submits.
because CONGRESS isn’t going to do a thing with a budget they haven’t already given their blessing on as far as the main points are concerned.
“In fact most if not all budgets end up almost exactly at the total the President started with and I can’t remember an override of a budget veto.”
Because CONGRESS has controlled the process from start to finish.
Tiberius - Your lightning rod of hate!
August 29th, 2011
5:43 pm
“Wrong question. The control does not have to be applied to be effective.”
MarkV-speak for “Dang, he caught he again in another mistake”.
Common Sense
August 29th, 2011
5:44 pm
“For every dollar spent, $1.44 is returned to the economy…”
While this comment seems intriguing, the actual velocity of money in our economy is higher….
See the most recent Fed report:
http://research.stlouisfed.org/publications/mt/page12.pdf
The reality is that for each dollar taken out by the government and spent reduces spending that would have otherwise occurred. For the current velocity of money is higher than the 1.44 government gets when it is spending….
Imagine that.
Lil' Barry Bailout (Revised Downward)
August 29th, 2011
6:02 pm
The Idiot Messiah’s plan for long term economic growth? More regulation. Massive unfunded mandates, Higher taxes. Weakening private property protections.
Yeah, that’ll work!
Idiot.
Joe The Plumber too.
August 29th, 2011
6:04 pm
urkle’s uncle will be released from illegal alien detention because his nephew urkle thinks himself above the law. Wonder how many more illegal aliens this clown has living in the country, although I’m sure barry the boy blunder had no knowledge of criminal activities happening within his own family on his watch . What a joke this pretender in chief is.
JDW
August 29th, 2011
6:16 pm
@Tiberius
“The President (usually – not in the case of this clueless President as evidenced by his budget being rejected by the Senate 97-0 earlier this year) consults with CONGRESSIONAL LEADERS about what can get through first. THEN he submits”
HORSE HOOHEY, name one single President that created a budget in collaboration with Congress…not Duhbya, not Clinton, Bush 1 had a few discussions, Ronnie and Tip had a drink or two. Part of being President is controlling the agenda and not a single one will ever let that go.
MarkV
August 29th, 2011
6:25 pm
Tiberius – Your lightning rod of hate! @5:43 pm: MarkV-speak for “Dang, he caught he again in another mistake”.
I understand that any subtlety goes way over your head, but I am going to give it a try anyway. My response to your pronouncement, “Any credit or blame on spending goes DIRECTLY to whoever controls CONGRESS,” was to point out the simplistic inanity of it, not to blame Republicans for the current deficit, even though they do have an effective control of the Congress. The logical conclusion of your dictum is that if there is a divided Congress, nobody is to blame or to deserve credit. There is no effect of the past, no consideration of the future. All that matters is who at the time controls Congress. A simplistic inanity.
Lil' Barry Bailout (Revised Downward)
August 29th, 2011
6:25 pm
The TV just said that Obozo’s new economic adviser has experience with unemployment. That’ll come in handy later next year.
Lil Bushie Bailout (Revised Upward)
August 29th, 2011
6:26 pm
“This is an impressive crowd — the haves and the have mores. Some people call you the elite — I call you my base.” –Bush at the 2000 Al Smith dinner
Michael
August 29th, 2011
6:27 pm
Yes, several million government jobs were created by government spending- but these jobs don’t generate new wealth, or lead to increased consumption or higher employment outside of government. And to pay for these jobs, you have to borrow against future tax revenues, which in turn hurts future growth.
Lil Bushie Bailout (Revised Upward)
August 29th, 2011
6:29 pm
The Idiot Messiah’s plan for long term economic growth? Less regulation. Massive unfunded wars, lower taxes for the Corporate parasites, and oil parasites. Weakening private property protections.
Yeah, that’ll work!
Idiot (Psst this isn’t 2006!).
________________________________________________
Fixed that for you, buddy. Thanks for the trip down memory lane!
“I’ll be long gone before some smart person ever figures out what happened inside this Oval Office.” –Bush: Washington, D.C., May 12, 2008
MarkV
August 29th, 2011
6:36 pm
Michael @6:27 pm: “Yes, several million government jobs were created by government spending- but these jobs don’t generate new wealth, or lead to increased consumption …”
Yes, I guess those people put the earned money under their mattresses instead of buying food, clothing and other necessities.
getalife
August 29th, 2011
6:45 pm
Same ole Andy.
Too partisan to make a coherent point.
You are missing something alright.
Patriotism.
I Report (-: You Whine )-: Thee Magnificent!!! mmm, mmmm, mmmmm! Just sayin...
August 29th, 2011
7:16 pm
I didn’t realize that laying waste to your nation’s economy was considered “patriotism.”
liberals are weird, aren’t they?
I Report (-: You Whine )-: Thee Magnificent!!! mmm, mmmm, mmmmm! Just sayin...
August 29th, 2011
7:28 pm
Check this out, so now the word is that the lamestream media hyped the hurricane so that the green weenie libs in New York could apply for federal disaster funds, money which will be taken from real victims in Joplin, Missouri.
liberals aren’t weird, they’re sick.
Lil' Barry Bailout (Revised Downward)
August 29th, 2011
8:10 pm
Lil Bushie Bailout: Thanks for the trip down memory lane!
—————–
Memory lane? That was your Idiot Messiah’s Monday morning!
Moderate Line
August 29th, 2011
8:26 pm
Kyle Wingfield
August 29th, 2011
1:45 pm
I do not doubt the inherent difficulty of “identify[ing] and count[ing] each job created” by policies like the stimulus. Here’s what I do have a problem with: People who treat these simulations as the concrete, final word on the matter as opposed to an estimate.
+++++
Since a third of the stimulus was tax cuts and we have essentially been cutting taxing since 2001 what do you have beside conservative economics theory to show that tax cuts actually create jobs. Since 2000 are tax collection has dropped from 20.6% of GDP to 14.9 which is a 28% drop in taxes collected. Are net job creation since 2000 is -1,295,000.
Under Clinton tax collection went from 17.5% of GDP to 20.6 a 17.7% increase. There were 23,070,000 non-farm jobs created over that period..
I agree with you on people who use models as concrete but where is the evidence over the past 20 years on tax cuts actually creating jobs.
I don’t believe the stimulus worked along with the tax cuts that went with them.
Moderate Line
August 29th, 2011
8:55 pm
Tiberius – Your lightning rod of hate!
August 29th, 2011
5:41 pm
“In fact most if not all budgets end up almost exactly at the total the President started with and I can’t remember an override of a budget veto.”
Because CONGRESS has controlled the process from start to finish
+++++
That is completely incorrect. The president does not have to sign the bill which I believe is the finish.
You Tiberius do not know the constitution.
Lil' Barry Bailout (Revised Downward)
August 29th, 2011
9:00 pm
Taxes as a percent of GDP increased after our President Bush’s tax cuts were fully implemented in 2003. And then Democrats stopped paying their mortgages.
And oh, by the way, tax revenue has exceeded 20% of GDP in one year since 1950. Your Idiot Messiah is spending 25% of GDP.
It’s the spending, stupid.
Moderate Line
August 29th, 2011
9:11 pm
JDW
August 29th, 2011
5:34 pm
Yet again, completely and utterly false. The President starts the budget process by submitting an initial budget, Congress debates and may or may not change it, then the President either signs it or not.
++++
The President and Congress are co-equals in the budgetary process. Congress has to pass it but president has to sign it. More specifically the people on the appropriation committees are co-equals. Look at where the money goes. Notice John Mica getting his Rail to nowhere in Orlando. These congressman are very powerful and are the more senior members. However, the President has the ability to ensure his priorities are in the budget or cut from the budget. Different Presidents were better or worse at getting what they wanted. LBJ was very good at getting what he wanted even Republicans. Jimmy Carter was not even good at getting what he wanted from his own party. Both had their own party running congress.
Tiberius - Your lightning rod of hate!
August 29th, 2011
9:18 pm
“The logical conclusion of your dictum is that if there is a divided Congress, nobody is to blame or to deserve credit.”
Actually, MarkV, the LOGICAL conclusion is that they BOTH share blame and/or credit.
“That is completely incorrect. The president does not have to sign the bill which I believe is the finish.
You Tiberius do not know the constitution.”
Actually, Moderate Line, I know the Constitution better than you could possibly ever imagine. But we’re not talking about Constitutional processes here (where you’re already at a disadvantage), but with POLITICAL processes, of which you have been shown to be completely and utterly clueless. Weak Presidents (as we have had for more than 50 years) do not take on Congress, which is why there has been a dramatic drop-off of Presidential vetoes in the past 60 years over traditional highs. And those vetoes have almost always been overridden by Congress. In short, Presidents will always sign budget and spending bills, because they’ve already negotiated the big picture details before submission.
Moderate Line
August 29th, 2011
9:18 pm
Lil’ Barry Bailout (Revised Downward)
August 29th, 2011
9:00 pm
Taxes as a percent of GDP increased after our President Bush’s tax cuts were fully implemented in 2003. And then Democrats stopped paying their mortgages.
And oh, by the way, tax revenue has exceeded 20% of GDP in one year since 1950. Your Idiot Messiah is spending 25% of GDP.
It’s the spending, stupid.
++++
You repeat the same false information. Taxes collected as a percentage of GDP dropped in 2004. They never reached the level of 2000.
2000 20.6
2001 19.5
2002 17.6
2003 16.2
2004 16.1
2005 17.3
2006 18.2
2007 18.5
2008 17.5
2009 14.9
2010 14.9
Spending under Obama:
2009 25%
2010 23.8%
Spending under Reagan:
1981 22.2 -2.6
1982 23.1 -4.0
1983 23.5 -6.0
1984 22.2 -4.8
1985 22.8 -5.1
1986 22.5 -5.0
1987 21.6 -3.2
1988 21.3 -3.1
getalife
August 29th, 2011
9:27 pm
Funny Andy.
The suddenly fiscal cons say no to paying for any more disasters.
They want our country to fall apart.
Disband the gop.
@@
August 29th, 2011
9:32 pm
So he’s backed himself into a corner on three separate occasions.
There’s only four corners in a stall. He’s gonna try to shovel the manure one more time!!??!!
Lame.
There’s no helping Obama. He’s either getting lousy advice or he’s simply stuck on stupid.
JDW
August 29th, 2011
9:49 pm
@Moderate Line…”The President and Congress are co-equals in the budgetary process.”
In theory I agree, but personally I believe that the power to start the process and veto the results carries more overall wieght. Congress certainly has a great deal of power over the line items, and has squandered large sums on Ear Marks and other goodies. For that reason I support a line item veto, but neither party can get that passed.
buck@gon
August 29th, 2011
9:51 pm
MarkV @ 1:28,
Shallow?
I think that’s a plain whining.
What if George Bush said, “I think you’re doing a great job, Brownie,” regarding Hurricane Katrina? Oh, wait a minute. He DID say that. Weren’t the presses running non-stop to criticize his “handling” of the situation?
I don’t think it’s shallow at all. I think it is very LIKE the mass media to criticize Republicans in such ways.
Fair is fair, and we need to remember we are in campaign season. “Shovel-ready jobs,” and “focus like a laser on the economy” and his extravagant vacations ARE going to haunt Obama all the way out of the White House.
Count on it.
Moderate Line
August 29th, 2011
9:56 pm
Tiberius – Your lightning rod of hate!
August 29th, 2011
9:18 pm
“The logical conclusion of your dictum is that if there is a divided Congress, nobody is to blame or to deserve credit.”
Actually, MarkV, the LOGICAL conclusion is that they BOTH share blame and/or credit.
“That is completely incorrect. The president does not have to sign the bill which I believe is the finish.
You Tiberius do not know the constitution.”
Actually, Moderate Line, I know the Constitution better than you could possibly ever imagine. But we’re not talking about Constitutional processes here (where you’re already at a disadvantage), but with POLITICAL processes, of which you have been shown to be completely and utterly clueless. Weak Presidents (as we have had for more than 50 years) do not take on Congress, which is why there has been a dramatic drop-off of Presidential vetoes in the past 60 years over traditional highs. And those vetoes have almost always been overridden by Congress. In short, Presidents will always sign budget and spending bills, because they’ve already negotiated the big picture details before submission.+++
The same person who said there are lies, damn lies and then statistics is pulling out a statistics to prove his point. Lol The number of vetoes. Where is the context. The President has the power of veto whether he or she uses it or not. How does his use of the veto prove or does not prove he does not have the power. If I see a guy 6′-9” am going to say well this guy is weak because he is never been in fight and won. No. He has never been in fight because no one wants to mess with the guy.
Just because a president does not use his authority does not mean he does not have it. They ALL had the same institutional power. Can anyone say LBJ was a weak president went came to getting the legislation he wanted. He had fewer vetoes because was able to get what he wanted without them. Was Andrew Jackson a weak president
20 Presidents have less than 20 vetoes(This is little misleading since some of these did not serve their full term) only two are in the 20 century. Only 4 Presidents had over 100 vetoes however, three of those where Roosevelt, Eisenhower and Truman. You point to three extreme examples of three presidents over a 30 year time period to show that contemporary presidents are weak using a statistics that really does not reflect their power.
A real reelection of power would be how many times they were overridden. Only 3 presidents were overridden more than 10 times. Truman, Nixon and Andrew Johnson. Only 6 since the Civil War have been overridden more than 5 times.
buck@gon
August 29th, 2011
10:00 pm
MarkV @ about 6:30,
When you create government jobs, you generally don’t create two things that people want. You create one: spending. In the private sector, when I sell you a car, you buy gas, you buy a garage and you begin economic activity (driving it) for your work and enjoyment that produces more and more.
When you sell the government a car, it gives it to its employee, purely as a benefit and insurance risk (because the recipient of a government car ususally has his own), and that employee does not create anything the economy needs or wants.
You might argue for public utilities (like water, sewer, fire and police), but I concede those. They are legitimate functions of government anyway, and also, water and sewer are fee paid items.
The guy at the welfare office, the CDC, the NEA or PBS who drives a k-car, usually is not the guy who always has something to do everytime he goes to work. Many hours of many days (if not all days entirely) are spent wasting time.
When an organization does not have to worry about generating its own revenue, and when middle management is only concerned with gaining more revenue next year, it’s amazing how inefficient the organization becomes. I’ve worked for the government and I know.
Moderate Line
August 29th, 2011
10:06 pm
JDW
August 29th, 2011
9:49 pm
@Moderate Line…”The President and Congress are co-equals in the budgetary process.”
In theory I agree, but personally I believe that the power to start the process and veto the results carries more overall wieght. Congress certainly has a great deal of power over the line items, and has squandered large sums on Ear Marks and other goodies. For that reason I support a line item veto, but neither party can get that passed.
++++
I believe we are in agreement. LBJ was able to get medicare passed and that is essentially 12% of our current budget. Reagan was able to get large increases to defense spending. Bush II got his free prescription for the elderly. Clinton was able to get NAFTA through even though his own party did not want it.
I believe the way you stated it is very accurate.
Moderate Line
August 29th, 2011
10:15 pm
buck@gon
August 29th, 2011
10:00 pm
MarkV @ about 6:30,
When you create government jobs, you generally don’t create two things that people want. You create one: spending. In the private sector, when I sell you a car, you buy gas, you buy a garage and you begin economic activity (driving it) for your work and enjoyment that produces more and more.
++++
The stimulus ship has sailed.
MarkV
August 29th, 2011
10:58 pm
buck@gon @10:00 pm
Is there anything in your post related to my post to Michael @6:27 pm? He wrote that” several million government jobs were created by government spending- but these jobs don’t generate new wealth, or lead to increased consumption …” I do not see anything in your latest post to counter my point that those jobs will indeed increase the consumption, because the people will use the earning to purchase necessities. You seem to be assuming that those people had the jobs and just change them for a job in the government, which is an unwarranted assumption
JKL2
August 29th, 2011
11:10 pm
Rafe- Spend more than you take in and you incur debt which will eventually paralyze the country.
The borrower becomes the lender’s slave. Leave it up to a black man to try and lead our country into Chinese slavery. Keep those printing presses rolling o. Free money for everybody.
JKL2
August 29th, 2011
11:19 pm
getalife- Too partisan to make a coherent point
ROFLMFAO! That might be your best one yet.
MarkV
August 29th, 2011
11:20 pm
buck@gon @10:00 pm:
Since you have taken a defense of the post by Michael @6:27 pm, and you have expressed similar thoughts but used too specific examples, which do not represent “government jobs” in general, I would like to know whether you agree with the following statement: “Yes, several million government jobs were created by government spending- but these jobs don’t generate new wealth …” If you do, would you care to define jobs that “generate new wealth?”
JKL2
August 29th, 2011
11:34 pm
moderate line@918-
So your point is obama has lowered taxes more than Bush while spending more than Reagan ever did at the same time. I can’t believe you’re not throwing rocks at the white house.
Lil Bushie Bailout (Revised Upward)
August 30th, 2011
10:32 am
and his extravagant vacations ARE going to haunt Obama all the way out of the White House.
Count on it.
______________________________________________
Why? They didn’t haunt Bushie all the way out. He took the whole month of August off in 2001. He was at his ranch a month before September 11th vacaying.