Economy Does Better Under Democrats

Bush was president until 2009 why do you keep misrepresenting that fact?

95% of spending and the deficit was locked in when Bush left office. See Cato, Forbes, Fact check, etc.

 

You've been duped by RW propaganda. There was a surplus under Clinton even excluding SS.

 

So you're claim is that was my source because the number "pretty close" to my post?

LOL. Wrong. Again.

- - - Updated - - -

Wrong again. You've never refuted it once.

- - - Updated - - -

Wrong again. You've never refuted it once.

 

Yes, Clinton left Bush a great economy with 3.8% unemployment and $236 billion surplus, which Bush and the Republicans promptly squandered running up new record deficits and the worst recession in 80 years.

But they cut taxes for the rich. I see why you liked them.

Spending slowed down before the Republicans took Congress, and skyrocketed as soon as Bush took office after Clinton.

LOL why has 1.4 fewer jobs hurt the economy? Gee I wonder why. ROTFLMAO

 

Quote me where I said he wasn't. Are you still trying to deny the Democrats took control of the Congress on 2007? Or are yih trying to claim Reid and Pelosi after winning the the Congress rubber stamped his budgets. Both of douse absurd claims as you try to excuse the fiscal mismanagement of the Democrats

Yes Democrat spending increases. Are you denying it?

 

The economy was slowing before Bush won the election and went into recession within weeks of his taking office, once again you misrepresent the facts.

And the lower reamers are you denying that?

In spite of Clinton requesting higher spending but the spending restraint and huge surge in revenues came under Republican policies.

 

Nonsense as that bogus claim has been refuted many times.

The economy grew 3.3% in 2001 but with Bush's tax cuts revenues fell hundreds of billions of dollars.

Yes, lower earners pay FICA taxes and Bush didn't cut their taxes one dime.

Spending slowed down before the Republicans took Congress, and skyrocketed as soon as Bush took office after Clinton.

 

Are you denying that fact?

President's are limited I'm their role in the budget by the political make up and timing as anyone with a basic knowledge of the budget process knows and recent history knows.

"In FY2009, Congress did not complete work by September 30, 2008. President Bush did sign some appropriations bills and a continuing resolution to keep the government running into President Obama’s first term, yet a Democrat controlled Congress purposely held off on the big spending portions of the appropriations bills until Obama took office. They did so for the purposes of jacking up spending. President Obama signed the final FY2009 spending bills on March 11, 2009.



Congressional Quarterly (subscription required) maps out a history of the FY 2009 final appropriations bills (H.R. 1105 and PL 111-, that would lead one to attribute most of the accelerated spending in FY 2009 to President Obama in a piece titled “2009 Legislative Summary: Fiscal 2009 Omnibus.” From CQ, “the omnibus provided a total of $1.05 trillion — $410 billion of it for discretionary programs — and included many of the domestic spending increases Democrats were unable to get enacted while George W. Bush was president.”
http://dailysignal.com/2012/05/24/the-truth-about-president-obamas-skyrocketing-spending/

Unlike last year, when Bush forced Democrats to accept lower spending figures, this year could prove more difficult for the president. The fiscal year begins Oct. 1, less than four months before he leaves office.

"He doesn't have us over a barrel this year, because either a President Clinton or a President Obama will have to deal with us next year," said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev. "We are not going to be held hostage to the unreasonableness of this president."

Much of the president's plan has little chance of passage, lawmakers and budget experts say. Nearly $200 billion in Medicare and Medicaid savings need congressional approval, which Democrats are unlikely to provide. "Dead on arrival," vowed Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., chairman of the Senate Finance Committee.
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/washington/2008-02-03-bush-budget_N.htm

So why do you continue to misrepresent the history?

Quote me where you claim I said otherwise.

 

Anyone who is not ignorant of recent history knows there was a recession in 2001 that began with a slowdown in 2000 before Bush was even elected.

They also do not confuse FICA contributions with income taxes and know about the EITC.

They also know the Democrats too the record for spending increases in 2008 and2009 taking the last Republican deficit is a paltry $161B to $1,400B in just two years.

 

Shrub Jr. left office leaving America with a $1.2 trillion annual deficit. Obama has cut that in half, and brought the economy out of the worse collapse since the Great depression.

 

After the Democrats took over the Congress and budget authority in 2007 when the Republicans handed them a $161B deficit and they increased spending 9% in 2008 and then 18% in 2009 (signed into law by President Obama) taking the deficit to $1,400B in just two years and almost NINE FOLD increase at the hand of the Democrats. Why do you credit Bush with Democrats budgets and Democrat spending increases?

 

Of course. Bush was president. Do you have a clue how the government works? Congress cannot pass a law without the President's signature, absent a 2/3 majority.

Jeez. Take a civics course

I see. So explain to us why the Republicans couldn't pass the massive tax cuts they wanted while Clinton was in office and until Bush got into office.

- - - Updated - - -

95% of spending was locked in before Obama got into office and the deficit was already running at $1.2 trillion.

Nice try to blaaaaame Obaaaama.

 

Jeez take a reading course and a history lesson. Lack of rebuttal noted again.

They passed the one that made revenue soar so they could balance the budget after his political adviser told him to else face the consequences.

So what, he and his fellow Democrats took budget control 2 years earlier.

I blamed Democrats why do you misstate it again?