I see you continue to ignore the fact that President Bush signed no spending bills for FY2009, and that President Obama signed several appropriations in the first few months of that year, as well as the Omnibus Spending Bill that the Democrat Congress refused to even send to President Bush for a signature.
I used to think you were merely ignorant of these facts. Now it is evident that you are willfully ignoring them.
Some questions for you:
What party was in charge of the Congress when the Dow began its record slide from its peak at the end of FY 2007 (the last fiscal year of the Republican Congress)?
What Party was in charge of Congress when the economy began shedding the jobs you mention?
What was the level of the Dow Jones Industrial Average on the last day of FY2007, the last fiscal year for the Republican Congress? What was it at the end of FY2008, the Democrats first fiscal year after regaining both houses of Congress? What was it at the end of FY2008, the Democrats second year in control of both houses of Congress?
What was the unemployment level in September 2007, the last month of the the Republican Congress' last fiscal year? What was it in September 2008, the end of the Democrats first fiscal year? What was in September 2009, the end of the the Democrats second fiscal year?
13,895; 10,850; 9712;
4.7%; 6.2%; 9.8%.
This is a congressional election, not a Presidential one, so the focus should be on the party that controls the Congress. When you look at the record, things look pretty bleak for the party for which you are stumping.
This one just needs to be filed under... figures don't lie, but liars figure!
Doesn't justify dignifying it with an answer really.
Lets see what the American electorate thinks on November 2.
The president campaigned on the promise to fundamentally change America and Theorist is pleased with his progress. Good thing he didn't promise to make her cost of energy skyrocket.
Oh wait he did and Theorist can be even more pleased if the promise is kept. Hope and change in the works there for you theorist!
What work has this inexperienced President done Theorist? He isn't Presidential material and never was. Women like yourself and young people put this "never had a real job" person in the Oval office. You and they were fooled and now you continue to defend him. Wake up for gosh sakes and never be fooled again.
No one ever elected as president for the first time has had "Presidential experience." Some one being or not being "Presidential material" is a matter of opinion. President Obama has done the best job possible under the existing conditions.
Some of the above characters need to have some sanity restored.
"Technical difficulties, please stand by"
When this message is displayed due to circuit overload, it may be more important to start unplugging individual loads to correct the overload than to argue over which added load plugged in by who at exactly what time caused the overload.
Precise and to the point! I am still laughing.
Time to unplug some of the overloads on Tuesday and the really big one in 2012!
Ike wouldn't know real facts if he stumbled over one and fell face first into a whole pile of them.
Spaniard, Maybe we shouldn't be so hard you. I just found out about the terrible disease you contracted due to fairly innocent social behavior.
Gonarea-lectum is got to be debilitating to say the least. However, a new miracle drug under the name of Votemout offers hope.
All those ginned up created jobs you speak of... what was the unemployment rate when Bush left office, and what is it today, not counting of course, those that have long ago quit looking for employment?
And didn't your Messiah promise if the stimulous was passed that unemployment would not reach 8.* percent? Cannot remember the exact number as it has been so long ago we passed that highwater mark and are holding firm at the higher numbers.
Your boy looses on Tuesday, get used to it!
He is the biggest excuse for a President in 100 years!
No, Ike, I wouldn't care to and waste time on your foolishness. Trig and I have a more important and practical thing to do...go buy a mousetrap to dispose of a varmit.
Trig objects mightily to sharing his food. And if Trig ain't happiy, I ain't happy!
And while we're at the store, we might pick up a supply of Votemout! We'll dispose of them varmits in wholesale lots.
Trig and I have a more important and practical thing to do...go buy a mousetrap to dispose of a varmit.
-- Posted by voyager on Sat, Oct 30, 2010, at 12:19 PM
Call PETA... call 911! Voyager is planning on disposing of a thinking, caring animal.
As you know, the budget submission does not spend a penny. It is the President's request for the spending. The actual spending is authorized through spending bills. I have noted that the President signed no spending bills, except continuing resolutions (I did neglect the bailout bill, and for that I apologize).
However, you continue to misconstrue the nature of the budget proposal. It is not a spending bill, and it is not law. It is a proposal, and I noted in my many posts on this issue the fact of that.
I have pointed out that the situation went downhill only when the Democrats took control of the Congress. That much is without question. That you continue to ignore that fact in an effort to paint everything as being President Bush's fault denies the reality of how spending is conducted.
While you're fact-checking my statements, find the one where I said the PResident did not submit or sign a budget. I don't think it is there. I referred to spending bills, not budgets. In fact, I was quite clear in the purpose of both.
Here, if you're interested in fact-checking, is what I actually wrote:
"Who signed the 2009 budget again? Refresh my memory."
Mr. Obama signed the omnibus spending bill for FY 2009. I posted a link for this in answer to Spaniard's statement to that regard last week. I'm surprised he didn't answer your querry himself, now that he has been set straight on the matter. It msut have slipped his mind.
Here is the history of the FY2009 spending bill during President Bush's tenure:
And here is the Budget President Bush submitted:
This budget was never signed into law.
Here is an article on the budget process. As you can see, the Democrat-controlled congress did not intend for President Bush to sign their spending measures, they just sent him continuing resolutions to keep the government going until the new president could step in and sign them:
I'm shocked! Shocked I say! That you were not told of this before.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Oct 26, 2010, at 3:38 PM"
Note the reference to the "budget submitted by President Bush"
Now, are you are saying that a budget submitted by the President in February of 2008 and rejected by the Democrat-Controlled Congress is responsible for spending that takes place nearly two years later? I don't think so.
And here is the chain of posts directed at Spaniard. Kindly show me where I said President Bush did not submit or sign the budget.
The budget is submitted by the President. What comes back to him is a series of spending bills to be signed. The President vetoed some before signing the revised versions, after a battle that went beyond the beginning of the fiscal year. At least one was passed over his veto.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Fri, Oct 22, 2010, at 11:21 AM
2009 Omnibus Appropriations Bill, H.R. 1105
Signed March 11, 2009. President Barack Obama
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Fri, Oct 22, 2010, at 11:25 AM
Here is the track of appropriation bills during President Bush's tenure:
As you can see, they died. The Congress carried the funding over until 2009 via continuing resolutions, until they could get Mr. Obama to sign their appropriations:
I'm afraid you can't pin the 2009 spending spree on President Bush, though I know you would like to do so.
I've pointed this out to you before.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Fri, Oct 22, 2010, at 11:39 AM
The 2009 budget submitted by President Bush included $3.1 trillion in spending, with anticipated revenues of $2.7 trillion, leaving an anticipated defict of about $400 billion.
That would be less than 1/3 of the actual deficit the Congress ran up in that year.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Fri, Oct 22, 2010, at 12:09 PM
Deficit spending is only wrong if done by conservative Republicans. Any liberal Democrat will tell you that.
-- Posted by DTower on Fri, Oct 22, 2010, at 3:52 PM
My error, by the way, on the 2009 budget. President Bush did not veto the 2009 spending bills, that was 2008. The 2009 bills did not make it to his desk for a veto.
So, let us look at the inconvient facts of this recession:
The economy appeared to be on track, with growing GDP, the Dow Jones Industrials rising towards their all-time high, at the time the Republicans 'handed the keys of Congress' over to the Democrats in January 2009.
The minimum wage was raised in July 2007, July 2008, and July 2009, increasing the cost of minimum wage labour by about 41%, with the first increase preceeding the beginning of the recession by only a few months.
The collapse of the Dow Jones Industrial Average
began on the first week of the first fiscal year under Nancy Pelosi's gavel, three months after the minimum wage was increased.
The budget deficit was declining after FY2004, up until FY2008, Nancy Pelosi's first budget year.
President Obama, not President Bush, signed the spending bill that heralded the 2009 spending spree, and our first $1-trillion-dollar-plus deficit.
Mr. Obama may have 'inherited' a mess, but he inherited it from his own party.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Fri, Oct 22, 2010, at 3:53 PM
Shaapley, you went to all that trouble to be precise, accurate, and clear in your reply to Ike who won't understand what you say anyway.
I don't take him seriously.
So is yours, Theorist.
Wolf never said you were a fool. He said you were fooled. I would agree with him. He owes you no apology.
Of course if the shoe fits.... well you know the rest!
It's hell being a democrat, I mean independent, these days isn't it?
That promises list.... I have noticed that there is never a source listed. Does that mean that it is your own recordkeeping?
Maybe something like that Democrat Presidents have a higher IQ than Republican Presidents do thing awhile back. Remember.... where it just sounded so right to you?
Theorist, The townsend acts were repealed in 1770, all but the tea tax. Lord North saw "justification" in keeping the tea tax as a way to maintain Parliment's power to tax. The economic substance doctrine [as you call it] is based on the same thinking. It only confirms who holds the power to declare it justified.
Remember... Tuesday is "Take Out The Trash" day!!!
In looking at past postings, it appears as though any comment is fair game no matter to whom it is addressed. Some do not spend hours on here and anything addressed to them may very well not be answered.
It would seem that any self proclaimed open minded person would welcome all comments.
There, there Theorist, don't go getting all in a dither. I speak when I like and I do not have a posse.
Oh and I am positive Wolf can do a better job taking care of Wolf than I ever could.
Back to your promise list. I totaled up 503 total promises, and he kept 122 of them.
Let me see now........ counting on my fingers....... that would be about 24.25447% of his promises kept. That was a really big time failing grade where I went to school.
Hmmm...do you know any? Angry Careless Rude Oppositional Nervous YoKel Man.
-- Posted by Theorist on Sun, Oct 31, 2010, at 2:16 PM
acronym, no Ike & Theorist are closed minded.
Theorist- you quoted
122 Promise Kept
22 Promise Broken
236 In the Works
as though it is a good thing.
We didn't like his campaign promises. We knew he would do what he said and then some, which he did. Nothing that Obama has done has been a surprise to us.
The only surprise is how you and others like yourself can not see how Big government means more taxes and spending that is out of control. Or perhaps you do see it and don't care. Well, good luck with that.
Probably none of us are as open minded or moderate as we would like to think. Being open minded is often a situational attribute at best.
I believe I am an Independent as I have equal disdain for both political parties. While I oppose much of what has been passed in the last two years, I opposed much of the prior administration and legislature.
I am under no illusions that changing the balance of power during the upcoming election will make things noticeably better, I believe it may slow some things down. I believe we are ill served any time any political party controls the Executive and Legislative branches of government.
What he kept, 122 according to your numbers, are what count, compromised is not a kept promise, in the works may never materialize, and the broken ones probably count for more than the rest put together.
You seem to be counting a lot of eggs that may never hatch into chickens.
If your count was accurate, he has less than a 25% grade in my book.
Oh and my math deficiencies, I'll put my ciphering up along side yours anyday. We don't count dimpled chads where I come from.
I would predict little good will be done for the people between election and first of the year.
Extending the tax cuts, I think is vital in giving confidence to small business to take advantage of any policy the Fed takes to stimulate the economy.
Those who whine about the cost of extending the tax cuts might want to consider $40 million in revenue is a drop in the bucket when it comes to deficits in trillions.
Business could be positioned to borrow, expand and hire knowing they can pay back with inflated dollars.
I know that is not long term healthy thinking economics, but it does lend to the perception of a good economy which is what gets things going.
You indicated I was deficient in Math, what has spelling got to do with this. And most of my spelling problems have to do with typing with stiff fingers.
Still boils down to he kept 122 promises according to your number, and I would hesitate to believe it if it really meant anything, but 122 kept promises is less than 25%. Results are all I care about, not maybes. Because when he gets judged day after tomorrow, he is going to find those wild azzed promises a little harder to deliver on. You can take that to the bank.
Now you may sigh, squeal, grunt, laugh, smile or a host of other condescending sounds and actions. Matters not, facts are still facts.
"You have repeatedly failed to prove, with or without facts, any causation between the Democrat congress policies upon taking office in 2007 and the downturn in the economy."
Actually, I've shown it, but you have dismissed it or ignored it. You haven't shown any causation between President Bush's policies and the economic downturn, either. So what is your point?
I'm throwing a Victory Party Tuesday night. The high we are going to feel will not require any adult beverages or other artifical stimulants.
Such things, however, will probably be required by those like Ike and Theorist just to kill the pain they are sure to feel. Sorry, but you brought it on yourselves even though we do feel a small measure of sympathy for you..
If the Congress did its job we'd have the budget resolved and the spending bills on the Presidents desk by October 1st, and thus the people would know, before the election is held, what the spending priorities will be and what the size defict is projected.
Now, when the President and the Congress are of different parties, it can be expected that budget battles, veto threats, and vetoes might well delay the budget process, although the Congress is still obligated to have those measures to the Presdident by October 1st. Not so this Congress. They didn't even send them to President Bush in 2008. With the Democrats in charge of both houses and the presidency in 2009, they still did not get the spending bills on the President's desk until November and December 2009.
We're now beginning November of 2010, and the FY2011 spending bills are nowhere to be seen. Just another series of continuing resolutions to keep things going until the elections are over. No spending bills means no CBO report on the deficit, and thus no bad news coming from them just before the election.
This lead me to wax poetic last month, when the delay was announced:
With elections forthcoming, and pollsters humming,
and the budget battle no nearer a solution,
the government needs funding, but Congress is running
thus they seek another Continuing Resolution.
The deficit, it seems, bursts at the seams,
with neither Congress nor the President
how much more we'll be spending on entitlements unending,
with debt, thus accumulated, not withstanding.
Continuing Resolution in hand, at the White House they'll land,
and ask the President to keep the money flowing.
And he will agree, for ne'er unravel will he,
the tangled knot that is woven, to his own party owing.
Campaigns must be fought, re-elections be sought,
all the harder to win if the truth be revealed.
No spending bills signed, to a continuation they're resigned,
the size of the deficit to remain concealed.
The economy, flat, produces few taxes that
could pay for all the spending desired.
Tho, curbing spending remains something entirely disdained
'mongst the throngs of politicians we've hired.
September pulls to an end, but we'll spend and
thanks to a resolution to keep the funding intact.
With the deadline so near, their constituents fear
that a spending measure they'll fail to enact.
But they need not fear, for the funding so dear
is crucial to their election desires.
So they'll keep it coming to keep their constituents humming,
and not fan the TEA Party's fires.
Congress long ago learnt, when Gingrich got burnt,
not to shut down the business of spending.
Great damage it inflicts and, thus, spending edicts
will be passed when e'er shutdowns are pending.
October 1st is the date after which it's too late
to have the budget passed in manner correct.
But our congress of late is resigned to their fate
of waiting post-election, spending to inflate.
So, now, worry not about all of that rot
about deficits and cuts thr'out the lands.
For we'll keep the cash flowing and you can rest knowing
that the country's in the very best of hands.
Posting a comment requires a subscription.