100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: Why Obamanomics Did Not Improve The Economy | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
Obamanomics did not improve the economny because it remains incomplete due to Congressional opposition. The President's plan, which is supported by most economists, will work well, but the House will not enact them. Everyone who knows anything about economics knows that a down economy necessitates increased government spendinging, not penny pinching. So Why different record breaking spending not fix anything? Congress makes the budget and that is dem controlled. Depends on what you mean by "did not fix anything." It prevented a repeat of the Great Despression. Perhaps that's nothing to you. Yea Let's prove how government spending prevented a great depression. USD went down, credit rating went down. Let's hear in detail what policies prevented that. What would have been it's cause. How we know what outcomes would have happened if we didn't do that etc. Are you serious? His policies prevented to totall collpse of the backing and auto industries. Where have you been? And the credit rating went down almost entirely because of the games being played by the Republicans. The deficit didn't concern anyone until it concerned them. Go back to the Great Depression. What pulled us out of it was govenment spending, slow at first but it went into overdrive with the beginning of WW II. The US literally spent it's way to prosperity! Without that the great American middle class would have never existed. Without it now, the middle class will likely not survive. where have you been? his trillion dollar stimulus only went to the rich folks, his backers... thats why nothing he is doing is working, because he is not for the people, but for the elites that got him voted into office... may want to read up more on where the funds went,, 'only' is usually a word that sets us up to be telling an untruth,,, http://www.recovery.gov/Transparency/fundingoverview/Pages/fundingbreakdown.aspx#TaxBenefits |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Chazster
on
Thu 08/30/12 01:20 PM
|
|
the last fiscal budget of Bush administration ENDED in october 2009 as a 'fix' for the growing economic issues, a combination of actions from the Bush administration and the incumbent presidential authority of Barack Obama produced an immediate triping of the deficit since that time the deficit has BOTH been declining,,, the auto industry did not bottom out and the banking industry did not bottom out we added 1000 billion to the deficit at the end of 2009 but in three years we have taken back off 400 billion (or almost half) continuing the trend would take our deficit back to PRE STIMULUS amounts within the next four years , and we could more accurately reflect upon OTHER more telling issues like the state of unemployment, or healthcare, or education,,,etc,,, Yes we can determine if it was fixed. We can't determined if anything was prevented. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
msharmony
on
Thu 08/30/12 01:24 PM
|
|
the last fiscal budget of Bush administration ENDED in october 2009 as a 'fix' for the growing economic issues, a combination of actions from the Bush administration and the incumbent presidential authority of Barack Obama produced an immediate triping of the deficit since that time the deficit has BOTH been declining,,, the auto industry did not bottom out and the banking industry did not bottom out we added 1000 billion to the deficit at the end of 2009 but in three years we have taken back off 400 billion (or almost half) continuing the trend would take our deficit back to PRE STIMULUS amounts within the next four years , and we could more accurately reflect upon OTHER more telling issues like the state of unemployment, or healthcare, or education,,,etc,,, Yes we can determine if it was fixed. We can't determined if anything was prevented. ok, lets start there what was 'broken' ,, specifically and then what would be the definitive standard that would determine it to be 'fixed'? for instance, if my radio in the car is broken, I would consider it FIXED when it was once again getting the reception that allowed me to tune into different stations and hear them clearly (although that would be more the function of the speakers than the radio itself) ,,but ,, here I give DEFINITIVE checkpoints that would change status from BROKEN to FIXED ,,,,can we do that with America as it relates to the President? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obamanomics did not improve the economny because it remains incomplete due to Congressional opposition. The President's plan, which is supported by most economists, will work well, but the House will not enact them. Everyone who knows anything about economics knows that a down economy necessitates increased government spendinging, not penny pinching. So Why different record breaking spending not fix anything? Congress makes the budget and that is dem controlled. Depends on what you mean by "did not fix anything." It prevented a repeat of the Great Despression. Perhaps that's nothing to you. Yea Let's prove how government spending prevented a great depression. USD went down, credit rating went down. Let's hear in detail what policies prevented that. What would have been it's cause. How we know what outcomes would have happened if we didn't do that etc. Are you serious? His policies prevented to totall collpse of the backing and auto industries. Where have you been? And the credit rating went down almost entirely because of the games being played by the Republicans. The deficit didn't concern anyone until it concerned them. Go back to the Great Depression. What pulled us out of it was govenment spending, slow at first but it went into overdrive with the beginning of WW II. The US literally spent it's way to prosperity! Without that the great American middle class would have never existed. Without it now, the middle class will likely not survive. where have you been? his trillion dollar stimulus only went to the rich folks, his backers... thats why nothing he is doing is working, because he is not for the people, but for the elites that got him voted into office... may want to read up more on where the funds went,, 'only' is usually a word that sets us up to be telling an untruth,,, http://www.recovery.gov/Transparency/fundingoverview/Pages/fundingbreakdown.aspx#TaxBenefits that link is no good... but i was referring to his bailouts of the auto industry and the banks, not a tax rebate... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obamanomics did not improve the economny because it remains incomplete due to Congressional opposition. The President's plan, which is supported by most economists, will work well, but the House will not enact them. Everyone who knows anything about economics knows that a down economy necessitates increased government spendinging, not penny pinching. So Why different record breaking spending not fix anything? Congress makes the budget and that is dem controlled. Depends on what you mean by "did not fix anything." It prevented a repeat of the Great Despression. Perhaps that's nothing to you. Yea Let's prove how government spending prevented a great depression. USD went down, credit rating went down. Let's hear in detail what policies prevented that. What would have been it's cause. How we know what outcomes would have happened if we didn't do that etc. Are you serious? His policies prevented to totall collpse of the backing and auto industries. Where have you been? And the credit rating went down almost entirely because of the games being played by the Republicans. The deficit didn't concern anyone until it concerned them. Go back to the Great Depression. What pulled us out of it was govenment spending, slow at first but it went into overdrive with the beginning of WW II. The US literally spent it's way to prosperity! Without that the great American middle class would have never existed. Without it now, the middle class will likely not survive. where have you been? his trillion dollar stimulus only went to the rich folks, his backers... thats why nothing he is doing is working, because he is not for the people, but for the elites that got him voted into office... may want to read up more on where the funds went,, 'only' is usually a word that sets us up to be telling an untruth,,, http://www.recovery.gov/Transparency/fundingoverview/Pages/fundingbreakdown.aspx#TaxBenefits that link is no good... but i was referring to his bailouts of the auto industry and the banks, not a tax rebate... hmm,,, we established the bank and auto bailouts were a combined effort under bush and obama,,,, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obamanomics did not improve the economny because it remains incomplete due to Congressional opposition. The President's plan, which is supported by most economists, will work well, but the House will not enact them. Everyone who knows anything about economics knows that a down economy necessitates increased government spendinging, not penny pinching. So Why different record breaking spending not fix anything? Congress makes the budget and that is dem controlled. Depends on what you mean by "did not fix anything." It prevented a repeat of the Great Despression. Perhaps that's nothing to you. Yea Let's prove how government spending prevented a great depression. USD went down, credit rating went down. Let's hear in detail what policies prevented that. What would have been it's cause. How we know what outcomes would have happened if we didn't do that etc. Are you serious? His policies prevented to totall collpse of the backing and auto industries. Where have you been? And the credit rating went down almost entirely because of the games being played by the Republicans. The deficit didn't concern anyone until it concerned them. Go back to the Great Depression. What pulled us out of it was govenment spending, slow at first but it went into overdrive with the beginning of WW II. The US literally spent it's way to prosperity! Without that the great American middle class would have never existed. Without it now, the middle class will likely not survive. where have you been? his trillion dollar stimulus only went to the rich folks, his backers... thats why nothing he is doing is working, because he is not for the people, but for the elites that got him voted into office... may want to read up more on where the funds went,, 'only' is usually a word that sets us up to be telling an untruth,,, http://www.recovery.gov/Transparency/fundingoverview/Pages/fundingbreakdown.aspx#TaxBenefits that link is no good... but i was referring to his bailouts of the auto industry and the banks, not a tax rebate... hmm,,, we established the bank and auto bailouts were a combined effort under bush and obama,,,, yes, and they went to already rich, as a thank you for getting them both in office... Chevy thanked them both by moving to mexico, and the bankers sent themselves a thank you by giving themselves multi-million dollar bonuses... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obamanomics did not improve the economny because it remains incomplete due to Congressional opposition. The President's plan, which is supported by most economists, will work well, but the House will not enact them. Everyone who knows anything about economics knows that a down economy necessitates increased government spendinging, not penny pinching. what exactly is the president's plan? class warfare and raising taxes that will collect $70 billion a year is NOT an economic plan.. and blaming this congress when Obama had both the house and senate in his pocket for two years is a joke.. Obama and his administration own this economy and the downturn that is on the way.. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
msharmony
on
Thu 08/30/12 02:20 PM
|
|
Obamanomics did not improve the economny because it remains incomplete due to Congressional opposition. The President's plan, which is supported by most economists, will work well, but the House will not enact them. Everyone who knows anything about economics knows that a down economy necessitates increased government spendinging, not penny pinching. what exactly is the president's plan? class warfare and raising taxes that will collect $70 billion a year is NOT an economic plan.. and blaming this congress when Obama had both the house and senate in his pocket for two years is a joke.. Obama and his administration own this economy and the downturn that is on the way.. this economy was in progress before Obama, class warfere is the trickle down economics that continues to give tax breaks and incentives to the top earners under a guise they will create jobs and then seeing that it disparately INCREASES the gap between those claiming to be the 'tricklers' and those waiting for it to reach the bottom,,,, when we say things have done better, like for the auto industry and banking industry, we are met with the pov that BUSH enacted the, well, guess what, that is a LARGE part of what has increased the deficit that ironically continues to be largely and sometimes solely 'blamed' on OBAMA OBAMA has not raised any income tax, although I continue to hear it implied as part of his 'plan' once OBAMA took office in 2009, his proposals of a BUDGET didnt begin until october after that point he had a democratic congress only until january 2011 so he had democratic control, as far as the economy is concerned, for slightly over a year, after that the house was taken from democrats by several politicians who publicly boasted that their OBJECTIVE was about battling with OBama, not making America better,,, the year previous to that, the major issue was healthcare , which was successfully passed |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obamanomics did not improve the economny because it remains incomplete due to Congressional opposition. The President's plan, which is supported by most economists, will work well, but the House will not enact them. Everyone who knows anything about economics knows that a down economy necessitates increased government spendinging, not penny pinching. what exactly is the president's plan? class warfare and raising taxes that will collect $70 billion a year is NOT an economic plan.. and blaming this congress when Obama had both the house and senate in his pocket for two years is a joke.. Obama and his administration own this economy and the downturn that is on the way.. this economy was in progress before Obama, class warfere is the trickle down economics that continues to give tax breaks and incentives to the top earners under a guise they will create jobs and then seeing that it disparately INCREASES the gap between those claiming to be the 'tricklers' and those waiting for it to reach the bottom,,,, MS HARMONY.... Taking money from the rich and giving it to the poor is also trickle down economics.. Taking tax money collected from the middle class and giving it to the poor is trickle down economics.. Give the poor jobs instead of someone elses money and you just might build something that lasts.. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obamanomics did not improve the economny because it remains incomplete due to Congressional opposition. The President's plan, which is supported by most economists, will work well, but the House will not enact them. Everyone who knows anything about economics knows that a down economy necessitates increased government spendinging, not penny pinching. what exactly is the president's plan? class warfare and raising taxes that will collect $70 billion a year is NOT an economic plan.. and blaming this congress when Obama had both the house and senate in his pocket for two years is a joke.. Obama and his administration own this economy and the downturn that is on the way.. this economy was in progress before Obama, class warfere is the trickle down economics that continues to give tax breaks and incentives to the top earners under a guise they will create jobs and then seeing that it disparately INCREASES the gap between those claiming to be the 'tricklers' and those waiting for it to reach the bottom,,,, MS HARMONY.... Taking money from the rich and giving it to the poor is also trickle down economics.. Taking tax money collected from the middle class and giving it to the poor is trickle down economics.. Give the poor jobs instead of someone elses money and you just might build something that lasts.. noone is 'taking' money from the rich or the middle class the rich and middle class are paying into the system that benefits them the poor have fewer of those benefits to pay into,,, I agree that we need more ABOVE POVERTY level jobs, and more of the QUALITY Education that can help people qualify for those jobs, but not that we just need jobs,, putting everyone at a mcdonalds for seven or eight bucks an hour will do NOTHING to curb poverty,,, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Chazster
on
Thu 08/30/12 03:05 PM
|
|
Oh no, tax breaks for the people that have the highest tax burden and even after these breaks have the highest tax burden. T_T it's and outrage.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oh no, tax breaks for the people that have the highest tax burden and even after these breaks have the highest tax burden. T_T it's and outrage. taxes are complex after loopholes and write offs, those burdens often dwindle down to less of a percentage than those without such 'burden' or such loopholes and write offs,,, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oh no, tax breaks for the people that have the highest tax burden and even after these breaks have the highest tax burden. T_T it's and outrage. taxes are complex after loopholes and write offs, those burdens often dwindle down to less of a percentage than those without such 'burden' or such loopholes and write offs,,, And lots of people in the top bracket don't have access to all of that. You don't have to be a CEO making millions to have the highest tax rates. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oh no, tax breaks for the people that have the highest tax burden and even after these breaks have the highest tax burden. T_T it's and outrage. taxes are complex after loopholes and write offs, those burdens often dwindle down to less of a percentage than those without such 'burden' or such loopholes and write offs,,, And lots of people in the top bracket don't have access to all of that. You don't have to be a CEO making millions to have the highest tax rates. thats true, you dont but you also shouldnt pay into a system that isnt working FOR YOU as much as those who the system most directly is benefitting its a chicken and egg debate really do rich people feel obligated to pay more because they are rich or are they rich because they pay more and if thats the cycle, how do the NON rich ever stop being left out of the loop? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Even after loopholes and capital gains the top 1% still pay a higher percentage on average than the rest of the country. To see this drop you have to look at the top 400 people whose mostly capital gains income. You know the top 10% of American tax payers are in the highest bracket? Not just 1%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Even after loopholes and capital gains the top 1% still pay a higher percentage on average than the rest of the country. To see this drop you have to look at the top 400 people whose mostly capital gains income. You know the top 10% of American tax payers are in the highest bracket? Not just 1% yes, taxes are complex understandable whats more complicates is how to end the cycle where those who 'have' will continue to get in return for giving and those who 'have not' will continue to be unworthy of getting because they dont have the same resources to 'give' with,, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obamanomics did not improve the economny because it remains incomplete due to Congressional opposition. The President's plan, which is supported by most economists, will work well, but the House will not enact them. Everyone who knows anything about economics knows that a down economy necessitates increased government spendinging, not penny pinching. a And increased government spending means bigger government which is exactly was is hurting the economy now. Government does not grow economies. Everyone who knows anything about economics knows that you are wrong. You sound like a typical Dimocrat. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obamanomics did not improve the economny because it remains incomplete due to Congressional opposition. The President's plan, which is supported by most economists, will work well, but the House will not enact them. Everyone who knows anything about economics knows that a down economy necessitates increased government spendinging, not penny pinching. a And increased government spending means bigger government which is exactly was is hurting the economy now. Government does not grow economies. Everyone who knows anything about economics knows that you are wrong. You sound like a typical Dimocrat. That is correct. A large government is a drain on the economy, not the other way around. Obama might have actually done some good by growing the national energy production system, improved it's education system, or bought long term improvements to America, but he grew government and dumped trillions into entitlements and "pay backs" to his political cronies. We see the result. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obamanomics did not improve the economny because it remains incomplete due to Congressional opposition. The President's plan, which is supported by most economists, will work well, but the House will not enact them. Everyone who knows anything about economics knows that a down economy necessitates increased government spendinging, not penny pinching. a And increased government spending means bigger government which is exactly was is hurting the economy now. Government does not grow economies. Everyone who knows anything about economics knows that you are wrong. You sound like a typical Dimocrat. That is correct. A large government is a drain on the economy, not the other way around. Obama might have actually done some good by growing the national energy production system, improved it's education system, or bought long term improvements to America, but he grew government and dumped trillions into entitlements and "pay backs" to his political cronies. We see the result. how much and how quickly should 'national energy' have grown or 'education' improve and how soon should we be able to determine whether 'long term improvements) have occured? what 'pay backs' did he offer? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obamanomics did not improve the economny because it remains incomplete due to Congressional opposition. The President's plan, which is supported by most economists, will work well, but the House will not enact them. Everyone who knows anything about economics knows that a down economy necessitates increased government spendinging, not penny pinching. a And increased government spending means bigger government which is exactly was is hurting the economy now. Government does not grow economies. Everyone who knows anything about economics knows that you are wrong. You sound like a typical Dimocrat. That is correct. A large government is a drain on the economy, not the other way around. Obama might have actually done some good by growing the national energy production system, improved it's education system, or bought long term improvements to America, but he grew government and dumped trillions into entitlements and "pay backs" to his political cronies. We see the result. how much and how quickly should 'national energy' have grown or 'education' improve and how soon should we be able to determine whether 'long term improvements) have occured? what 'pay backs' did he offer? If you remember some of his original promises (which were broken), he promised to expand nuclear energy and take other steps to get us away from foreign oil which is a HUGE drain on the economy. He has done nothing but make things worse by stopping Gulf drilling and driving much of our oil production industry overseas. The nuke program was just an empty promise. Gas prices are now doubled. Everyone who is honest about the situation knows a major problem with our education system is the teacher's unions who halt progress at every step and insure incompetent teachers get jobs for life. Obama promised to "fix" the problem, but instead has pandered to public unions to get votes. He has done NOTHING to fix the problem and the problem has gotten worse. You don't have to look far to see documentation of the stimulus money going to Obama's supporters. You also don't have to look far to see that areas where he made major cuts did not generally support him or the Democrat party even though he had promised to support them. (Read this "manned space program"). |
|
|
|
|
