100 Daze

[Freedom4all]

It's a stunner.
The president likely boasts the worst economic record for any new president in history.

The president said something about bringing down the budget deficit?

How exactly is quadrupling the deficit bringing down the deficit?

Barack Obama claimed that he created or saved 150,000 jobs from his legislation.
Over a million jobs have been lost since he took office so it looks like he has some work to do.

Gross domestic product decreased at an annual rate of 6.1% in the first three months of 2009- a historic low for a new president. Wednesday’s headline data were worse than expected, as analysts had predicted a 4.7% contraction.

FACT CHECK: Obama disowns deficit he helped shape

WASHINGTON (AP) - "That wasn't me," President Barack Obama said on his 100th day in office, disclaiming responsibility for the huge budget deficit waiting for him on Day One.

It actually was him - and the other Democrats controlling Congress the previous two years - who shaped a budget so out of balance.

 

[cltrat]

the first 100 days have been great

if you think the federal government should tell you what to do and the state governments just figureheads to carry out the feds wishes

or if you have marxist views

 

[freedom]

WOW .....


now your an econmic expert ?


if you want to learn something go read my doom journal ..

 

[delldude]

Freedom4all:

This administration is doing what got us into this mess in the first place. When Humpty Dumpty falls...its for keeps.

 

[Freedom4all]

What factual data does Prez-Obama-Crazy-Talk to back up his fantasy statement of that "he created or saved 150,000 jobs from his legislation?"

Seriously. :huh:

 

[Garfield1966]

Curious, were you this upset when Reagan was requesting deficit busting budgets and the Dem Congress approved them? What about Clinton and the Republican Congress .. OH yea, it went down then... my bad. What about when Bush II and the Republican Congress were running the deficit to record levels? Why all the concern now? Seems quite disingenuous to me.

At the end of 2008, the national debt was at $9.9 trillion dollars. In 2000, the debt was about $6 trillion (actually $5.6 trillion) so in 8 years the debt when up over $4 trillion. Where was your outrage?

Why did Bush not veto the budget for the past two years if they were so bad? Could it be that he and Congress were all making out like bandits?

Stop acting as if this is all new to you and has never happened before. Your feigned anger is getting old.

 

[cltrat]

WOW .....


now your an econmic expert ?


if you want to learn something go read my doom journal ..

and you are???? LOLOLOL I am in tears laughing on the floor

and it's economic there "expert" LOLOL

 

[tech2101]

Curious, were you this upset when Reagan was requesting deficit busting budgets and the Dem Congress approved them? What about Clinton and the Republican Congress .. OH yea, it went down then... my bad. What about when Bush II and the Republican Congress were running the deficit to record levels? Why all the concern now? Seems quite disingenuous to me.

At the end of 2008, the national debt was at $9.9 trillion dollars. In 2000, the debt was about $6 trillion (actually $5.6 trillion) so in 8 years the debt when up over $4 trillion. Where was your outrage?

Why did Bush not veto the budget for the past two years if they were so bad? Could it be that he and Congress were all making out like bandits?

Stop acting as if this is all new to you and has never happened before. Your feigned anger is getting old.

We have heard this same tortured logic before. I vividly remember much of the same BS rhetoric when Reagan/Clinton were elected.

Historians do not monopolize this discussion board.

 

[Freedom4all]

Curious, were you this upset when Reagan was requesting deficit busting budgets and the Dem Congress approved them? What about Clinton and the Republican Congress .. OH yea, it went down then... my bad. What about when Bush II and the Republican Congress were running the deficit to record levels? Why all the concern now? Seems quite disingenuous to me.

At the end of 2008, the national debt was at $9.9 trillion dollars. In 2000, the debt was about $6 trillion (actually $5.6 trillion) so in 8 years the debt when up over $4 trillion. Where was your outrage?

Why did Bush not veto the budget for the past two years if they were so bad? Could it be that he and Congress were all making out like bandits?

Stop acting as if this is all new to you and has never happened before. Your feigned anger is getting old.

That was then and people were angry. This is now and people are more angry there Einstein. You ignorance is whats getting old.

 

[Garfield1966]

I'll take that as a no.

 

[Freedom4all]

I'll take that as a no.

What is it that you dont understand? Yes people were angry then, just as they are now. Is your defense for the present days problem, created by our present day elected officials, is placing blame at the feet of past officials? Are you that naive?

 

[Garfield1966]

The people who are upset now were not upset for the last eight years. The opposition was. The defenders of the former POTUS were saying it was necessary due to the war, defense ...blah blah blah. I have been arguing against the debt since Reagan started his spending spree.

 

[Dignity]

"he created or saved 150,000 jobs from his legislation?"

Seriously. :huh:

I hope jobs are created.

the only thing I can sort of recall regarding "150 thousand" would be the post office offering 150 thousand early retirements? (I stand corrected)

if!

150 thousand early outs are offered in government, then it may help prevent 150 thousand 'lay offs' in another delivery type service by shifting some of that work to those companies (non-government), therefore theoretically projecting (over a course of time) preserving jobs?

 

[Garfield1966]

Say what you will about Mr Reagan. his politics and your like/dislike of his policies but as a man he had honor, integrity and leadership skills. Traits that since have been sorely lacking except for possibly Bush Sr.

I'll go 2 out of 3. Leadership skills is not something i associate with RR. To me, leadership requires an understanding of the issue(s) of which I do not believe RR had. He surrounded him self with people who gave him the info they thought he needed. I do not believe he could carry on a conversation about economics, military procurement or much else with out someone else by his side giving him info. He was a great orator and had excellent speech writers but I do not believe that equates to leadership. From what little I know about Iaccoca, I would say he had leadership skills, Steven Jobs, Bill Gates perhaps. Colin Powell maybe?

 

[Freedom4all]

I'll go 2 out of 3. Leadership skills is not something i associate with RR. To me, leadership requires an understanding of the issue(s) of which I do not believe RR had. He surrounded him self with people who gave him the info they thought he needed. I do not believe he could carry on a conversation about economics, military procurement or much else with out someone else by his side giving him info. He was a great orator and had excellent speech writers but I do not believe that equates to leadership. From what little I know about Iaccoca, I would say he had leadership skills, Steven Jobs, Bill Gates perhaps. Colin Powell maybe?

History would prove you wrong on that many times over.