Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Re: Obama
0 views
Skip to first unread message
Cade Larson
Nov 6, 2012, 5:04:42 PM11/6/12
to
On 11/6/2012 2:59 PM, Frank Galikanokus wrote:
> ipe not a
http://online.wsj.com/
Whether or not Americans choose to believe him, there's no denying the
fiscal reality created by the rollout version of President Obama last
year, as detailed in the Congressional Budget Office report released
yesterday. For the second year in a row, fiscal 2010 will see a
trillion-dollar deficit—an estimated $1.35 trillion, or 9.2% of GDP,
which is down slightly from last year's post-World War II record of 9.9%.
The slow pace of economic recovery has contributed to a collapse in
revenues, down to 14.8% of GDP in 2009 and an estimated 14.9% this year.
That's well below the modern historical average of about 18.1%, and it
is a reminder that economic growth is the most important contributor to
smaller deficits. Had last year's "stimulus" worked half as well as the
White House advertised, these deficits wouldn't be as large.
But as the nearby chart shows, Mr. Obama's major contribution to
deficits has been a record spending spree. In 2007, before the
recession, federal expenditures reached $2.73 trillion. By 2009
expenditures had climbed to $3.52 trillion. In 2009 alone, overall
federal spending rose 18%, or $536 billion. Throw in a $65 billion
reduction in debt service costs due to low interest rates, and the
overall spending increase was 22%.
In one year.
CBO confirms that Democrats have taken federal spending to a new and
higher plateau: 24.7% of GDP in 2009, 24.1% this year, and back to an
estimated 24.3% in 2011. The modern historical average is about 20.5%,
and less than that if you exclude the Reagan defense buildup of the
1980s that helped to win the Cold War and let Bill Clinton reduce
defense spending to 3% of GDP in the 1990s.
This means that one of every four dollars produced by the sweat of
American private labor is now taxed and redistributed by 535 men and
women in Congress.
> ipe not a
http://online.wsj.com/
Whether or not Americans choose to believe him, there's no denying the
fiscal reality created by the rollout version of President Obama last
year, as detailed in the Congressional Budget Office report released
yesterday. For the second year in a row, fiscal 2010 will see a
trillion-dollar deficit—an estimated $1.35 trillion, or 9.2% of GDP,
which is down slightly from last year's post-World War II record of 9.9%.
The slow pace of economic recovery has contributed to a collapse in
revenues, down to 14.8% of GDP in 2009 and an estimated 14.9% this year.
That's well below the modern historical average of about 18.1%, and it
is a reminder that economic growth is the most important contributor to
smaller deficits. Had last year's "stimulus" worked half as well as the
White House advertised, these deficits wouldn't be as large.
But as the nearby chart shows, Mr. Obama's major contribution to
deficits has been a record spending spree. In 2007, before the
recession, federal expenditures reached $2.73 trillion. By 2009
expenditures had climbed to $3.52 trillion. In 2009 alone, overall
federal spending rose 18%, or $536 billion. Throw in a $65 billion
reduction in debt service costs due to low interest rates, and the
overall spending increase was 22%.
In one year.
CBO confirms that Democrats have taken federal spending to a new and
higher plateau: 24.7% of GDP in 2009, 24.1% this year, and back to an
estimated 24.3% in 2011. The modern historical average is about 20.5%,
and less than that if you exclude the Reagan defense buildup of the
1980s that helped to win the Cold War and let Bill Clinton reduce
defense spending to 3% of GDP in the 1990s.
This means that one of every four dollars produced by the sweat of
American private labor is now taxed and redistributed by 535 men and
women in Congress.
Cade Larson
Nov 6, 2012, 5:50:16 PM11/6/12
to
On 11/6/2012 3:22 PM, Frank Provasek wrote:
> On Nov 5, 11:03 pm, Cade Larson<c...@live.nail.com> wrote:
>> On 11/5/2012 8:52 PM, sgt23 wrote:
>>
>>> On Nov 5, 3:37 pm, Cade Larson<c...@live.nail.com> wrote:
>>>> On 11/5/2012 1:26 PM, Georgette Neff wrote:
>>
>>>>> Watch the video.
>>
>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OvnAE8olUxU
>>
>>>>> The truth was right here all the time.
>>
>>>> "If I don't have this done in three years, then there's going to be a
>>>> one-term proposition"—President Obama, 2009.
>>
>>> Since we do republicans care what someone says,
>>
>> http://online.wsj.com/
>>
>> New income data from the Census Bureau, tabulated by former Census
>> income specialists at the nonpartisan economic consulting firm Sentier
>> Research, reveal that the three-and-a-half years of the Obama Presidency
>> have done enormous harm to middle-class households.
>>
>> In January 2009, the month President Obama entered the Oval Office and
>> shortly before he signed his stimulus spending bill, median household
>> income was $54,983. By June 2012, it had tumbled to $50,964, adjusted
>> for inflation. (See the chart nearby.) That's $4,019 in lost real
>> income, a little less than a month's income every year.
>
> You are citing on OPINION PIECE
I am citing hard economic data, and here is some more:
https://stutteringmessiah.wordpress.com/2012/09/28/thanks-obama-incomes-fall-3040-during-recovery/
Two of the groups hit hardest have been ones that turned out in
abundance for Obama in 2008: black Americans and younger Americans
(those between the ages of 25 and 34).
During the first three years of the Obama “recovery,” the real median
household income for black Americans dropped a whopping 11.1 percent.
For Americans between the ages of 25 and 34 — the group most apt, as
Paul Ryan put it, to be “staring up at fading Obama posters” and looking
to “get going with life” — real median household income dropped 8.9 percent.
Moreover, we’re still not headed in the right direction. Last month,
American households’ real median annual income fell by another $543 —
from $51,221 to $50,678.
> On Nov 5, 11:03 pm, Cade Larson<c...@live.nail.com> wrote:
>> On 11/5/2012 8:52 PM, sgt23 wrote:
>>
>>> On Nov 5, 3:37 pm, Cade Larson<c...@live.nail.com> wrote:
>>>> On 11/5/2012 1:26 PM, Georgette Neff wrote:
>>
>>>>> Watch the video.
>>
>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OvnAE8olUxU
>>
>>>>> The truth was right here all the time.
>>
>>>> "If I don't have this done in three years, then there's going to be a
>>>> one-term proposition"—President Obama, 2009.
>>
>>> Since we do republicans care what someone says,
>>
>> http://online.wsj.com/
>>
>> New income data from the Census Bureau, tabulated by former Census
>> income specialists at the nonpartisan economic consulting firm Sentier
>> Research, reveal that the three-and-a-half years of the Obama Presidency
>> have done enormous harm to middle-class households.
>>
>> In January 2009, the month President Obama entered the Oval Office and
>> shortly before he signed his stimulus spending bill, median household
>> income was $54,983. By June 2012, it had tumbled to $50,964, adjusted
>> for inflation. (See the chart nearby.) That's $4,019 in lost real
>> income, a little less than a month's income every year.
>
> You are citing on OPINION PIECE
I am citing hard economic data, and here is some more:
https://stutteringmessiah.wordpress.com/2012/09/28/thanks-obama-incomes-fall-3040-during-recovery/
Two of the groups hit hardest have been ones that turned out in
abundance for Obama in 2008: black Americans and younger Americans
(those between the ages of 25 and 34).
During the first three years of the Obama “recovery,” the real median
household income for black Americans dropped a whopping 11.1 percent.
For Americans between the ages of 25 and 34 — the group most apt, as
Paul Ryan put it, to be “staring up at fading Obama posters” and looking
to “get going with life” — real median household income dropped 8.9 percent.
Moreover, we’re still not headed in the right direction. Last month,
American households’ real median annual income fell by another $543 —
from $51,221 to $50,678.
Cade Larson
Nov 6, 2012, 5:52:37 PM11/6/12
to
On 11/6/2012 3:26 PM, Frank Provasek wrote:
> On Nov 6, 10:19 am, Cade Larson<c...@live.nail.com> wrote:
>> On 11/6/2012 7:33 AM, Frank Provasek wrote:
>>> disappear just in the United States. That's some
>>> $13,000 for every man, woman and child. To think that would not
>>> affect household incomes adversely for many years is foolish.
>>> If anything, the stimulus was not big enough to keep the economy only
>>> in mild recession.
>>
>> The "stimulus" FAILED, less than 4% went to shovel-ready projects, LESS
>> THAN FOUR PERCENT!!!!!
>>
>> Now we have an open-ended 40 BILLION$$ a month from the Fed to infinity
>> and beyond!!!
>>
>> IT FAILED!!!
>>
>> You taxaholic Dems are spending us into a full on national BANKRUPTCY!
>
> Taxaholic?
>
Why yes, that's how we got to an additional 6 TRILLION$$$ of debt under
Obama!
http://online.wsj.com/
Whether or not Americans choose to believe him, there's no denying the
fiscal reality created by the rollout version of President Obama last
year, as detailed in the Congressional Budget Office report released
yesterday. For the second year in a row, fiscal 2010 will see a
trillion-dollar deficit�an estimated $1.35 trillion, or 9.2% of GDP,
> On Nov 6, 10:19 am, Cade Larson<c...@live.nail.com> wrote:
>> On 11/6/2012 7:33 AM, Frank Provasek wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Nov 5, 3:00 pm, Cade Larson<c...@live.nail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> In January 2009, the month President Obama entered the Oval Office and
>>>> shortly before he signed his stimulus spending bill, median household
>>>> income was $54,983. By June 2012, it had tumbled to $50,964, adjusted
>>>> for inflation. (See the chart nearby.) That's $4,019 in lost real
>>>> income, a little less than a month's income every year.
>>
>>> The September 2008 collapse caused about $4 trillion in wealth to
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Nov 5, 3:00 pm, Cade Larson<c...@live.nail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> In January 2009, the month President Obama entered the Oval Office and
>>>> shortly before he signed his stimulus spending bill, median household
>>>> income was $54,983. By June 2012, it had tumbled to $50,964, adjusted
>>>> for inflation. (See the chart nearby.) That's $4,019 in lost real
>>>> income, a little less than a month's income every year.
>>
>>> disappear just in the United States. That's some
>>> $13,000 for every man, woman and child. To think that would not
>>> affect household incomes adversely for many years is foolish.
>>> If anything, the stimulus was not big enough to keep the economy only
>>> in mild recession.
>>
>> The "stimulus" FAILED, less than 4% went to shovel-ready projects, LESS
>> THAN FOUR PERCENT!!!!!
>>
>> Now we have an open-ended 40 BILLION$$ a month from the Fed to infinity
>> and beyond!!!
>>
>> IT FAILED!!!
>>
>> You taxaholic Dems are spending us into a full on national BANKRUPTCY!
>
> Taxaholic?
>
Why yes, that's how we got to an additional 6 TRILLION$$$ of debt under
Obama!
http://online.wsj.com/
Whether or not Americans choose to believe him, there's no denying the
fiscal reality created by the rollout version of President Obama last
year, as detailed in the Congressional Budget Office report released
yesterday. For the second year in a row, fiscal 2010 will see a
which is down slightly from last year's post-World War II record of 9.9%.
Cade Larson
Nov 6, 2012, 8:54:25 PM11/6/12
to
0 new messages