name 1 thing a democrat has done to improve the economy since 1980

[bra_man69]

Weak. Very weak. Try again. You are a man aren't you? Jerryinflorida! LOL

Ok my turn, Jerry. Name one thing, one thing, a Republican has done to improve the economy since 2000?

Hey now that's my thread!!!
Stinky cunt jen really is a woman the pictures that (it) uses are question able.
There's a thread here that she (might) have stolen them from a lady with a kid.

 

[Boxlicker101]

How about one, or two things per year under a Democratic President? That seems to fit the Spirit of the thread

1993 - Family and Medical Leave Act, Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993
1994 - Omnibus Crime Control Act of 1994
1995 - Sadly, the Democrats lost the House and Senate and nothing got done in 1995
1996 - Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act
1997- Balanced Budget Act of 1997
1998 - Sadly, Clinton blew a load in an intern's face and nothing got done in 1998 that had an impact in 1998 (wait until 2000!)
1999 - A budget surplus of $126 billion in 1999 traceable to the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997
2000 - A budget surplus of $236 billion in 2000 traceable to the Workforce Investment Act of 1998

2009 - American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009
2010 - Tax Relief, Unemployment Insurance Reauthorization, and Job Creation Act of 2010
2011 - Killed Bin Laden Dead
2012 - Sadly, nothing. Too many assholes in the House.
2013 - Bureau of Reclamation Small Conduit Hydropower Development and Rural Jobs Act

This was fun to remember and document. Thanks Jen.

I hope you are aware the GOP controlled both houses of Congress from 1995 through 2000. Any legislation during that period can be credited to that fact, as can any budget surpluses.

As far as Obama, I don't believe he has done anything positive in almost five years as president. He definitely hasn't done anywhere near as much as he said he would. Things are looking better now, thanks largely to the GOP controlling the House again.

 

[phrodeau]

I hope you are aware the GOP controlled both houses of Congress from 1995 through 2000. Any legislation during that period can be credited to that fact, as can any budget surpluses.

As far as Obama, I don't believe he has done anything positive in almost five years as president. He definitely hasn't done anywhere near as much as he said he would. Things are looking better now, thanks largely to the GOP controlling the House again.

And pray tell, what has the GOP-controlled House accomplished lately?

 

[Boxlicker101]

And pray tell, what has the GOP-controlled House accomplished lately?

They've kept The Big O from going any crazier than he already was.

 

[phrodeau]

They've kept The Big O from going any crazier than he already was.

They're about to approve military action in Syria. That should line a few pockets at Northrop Grumman.

 

[SuprSalor]

So, if it's all about who controls the House and Senate (and in truth that IS what makes the difference), why does everyone cry and moan about who is in the Oval Office?

 

[dan_c00000]

Let's start with the following reality: Clinton left office +$3-6 trillion. Bush left office with -$3-6 trillion.

That means Bush II managed to spend not only what the surplus was but also created the debt as well.

Here's how it got spent (tax cuts and wars):

Email PrintReprintsThe three best charts on how Clinton’s surpluses became Bush and Obama’s deficits
By Ezra Klein, Published: September 5, 2012 at 7:19 pmE-mail the writer
Comments More There’s a reason Bill Clinton is on the stage tonight. When he was president, America enjoyed a booming economy and surpluses (here are some charts). Since he left the White House, things haven’t been quite as good.

But the story of why they haven’t been quite as good is more complicated than “Clinton isn’t around now.” Here are three of the best analyses of what’s happened to the federal budget since 2001. I’ve included the key paragraph and chart from each of them.

The Pew Fiscal Analysis Initiative: “Between 2001 and 2011, about two-thirds (68 percent) of the $12.7 trillion growth in federal debt has been due to new legislation. Forty percent of this legislative growth was the result of tax cuts enacted after January 2001, and 60 percent resulted from spending increases. Technical and economic revisions combined caused about one quarter (27 percent) of the growth, and changes in other means of financing accounted for 6 percent.



E21: “Roughly half of the reason the surpluses never materialized is that federal spending was subsequently increased (over half of this total increase was concentrated in the three years of 2009-11). A little over one-quarter disappeared because of subsequent corrections to the 2001 projections. Less than one-quarter was due to tax relief of any kind – and only a little more than half of that small fraction is directly attributable to the 2001 and 2003 tax relief packages.”



The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities: “If not for the Bush tax cuts, the deficit-financed wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the effects of the worst recession since the Great Depression (including the cost of policymakers’ actions to combat it), we would not be facing these huge deficits in the near term. By themselves, in fact, the Bush tax cuts and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan will account for almost half of the $20 trillion in debt that, under current policies, the nation will owe by 2019. The stimulus law and financial rescues will account for less than 10 percent of the debt at that time.”



All of these analyses are using data from the Congressional Budget Office, and all of them are telling the same basic story. But they explain it in slightly different ways.

All agree that the projections in 2001 were simply wrong. They didn’t see that the tech bubble was about to pop, and they definitely didn’t foresee the economy falling off a cliff in 2008. That alone accounts, in all the papers, for about a quarter of the deterioration.

The place where you see real differences is in how the papers account for the role of legislation and policy in piling up the debt.

Writing for E21, Charles Blahous ends by grouping all spending together and all tax cuts together. That deemphasizes the role of tax cuts.

At CBPP, Kathy Ruffing and Jim Horney break the spending apart, showing how much went to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, how much went to the stimulus, and so on. When built that way, the Bush tax cuts appear to be the single largest policy contributor the current deficits.

CBPP also projects the numbers forward into the next decade. Because the tax cuts continue to grow in size, but the stimulus and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan end, that further enlarges the role the tax cuts play in the expected deterioration of the budget.

All these analyses tell the same story in one key respect, however. The primary drivers of the debt predate Barack Obama. The post-9/11 wars and security build-up, the Bush tax cuts, and the 2001 and 2008 recessions simply began before Obama became president. You can blame him for extending the Bush tax cuts till 2012, or for the stimulus (though the stimulus would never have happened without the 2008 financial crisis), but the structural of deterioration came in the Bush years.

Of course, the real question in this election isn’t who caused the deficits, but who has the best plan to retire them. For more on that, here’s Obama’s plan, and here’s what Romney has promised. I say “has promised,” as Romney’s plan still lacks key details we need in order to say what he’s actually going to do, and whether it’s credible. Given what we know now, I’m skeptical.

Here's what repbulitards have done to fix it.

http://s3.amazonaws.com/dk-production/images/555/large/Jobs-vs-aca-votes.png?1342030561

 

[cleaver]

Can anyone name 1 thing .... that any democrat has done to improve the economy since 1980?

I can wait ...

yeah...

this chick called laurel started fucking this dude with an island name...
80's right?

 

[jeninflorida]

so you people still can't name one thing.... on how the economy became stronger...how a democrat create more jobs.

got it.

maybe tomorrow?

oh wait, democrats are not capable of intelligent thoughts. your kind is obsessed with higher taxes to support your ignorant lazy way of life

 

[jeninflorida]

Hey now that's my thread!!!
Stinky cunt jen really is a woman the pictures that (it) uses are question able.
There's a thread here that she (might) have stolen them from a lady with a kid.

WHAT THE FUCK IS WRONG WITH YOU?

YOU MENTALLY FUCKED UP PERSON!

posting pictures of some stranger and her kids on a PORN WEB SITE. YOU FUCKING, PEICE OF SHIT

you are morally bankrupt and when I tell you that, well you go nuts.

why?

because you are mentally damaged and obsess with me... that I have the nerve to tell you that.

you and the others need help!

no wonder you need higher taxes ... to support your way of life

because you are to FUCKED to make it on your own

 

[BoyNextDoor]

I hope you are aware the GOP controlled both houses of Congress from 1995 through 2000. Any legislation during that period can be credited to that fact, as can any budget surpluses.

As far as Obama, I don't believe he has done anything positive in almost five years as president. He definitely hasn't done anywhere near as much as he said he would. Things are looking better now, thanks largely to the GOP controlling the House again.

1995 - Sadly, the Democrats lost the House and Senate and nothing got done in 1995

Made it bigger for you so you can read it grandpa

 

[BoyNextDoor]

so you people still can't name one thing.... on how the economy became stronger...how a democrat create more jobs.

got it.

maybe tomorrow?

oh wait, democrats are not capable of intelligent thoughts. your kind is obsessed with higher taxes to support your ignorant lazy way of life

Hi Jerry. How's the wife? I named more than one.

Have a nice day.

 

[PeteHulbert37]

WHAT THE FUCK IS WRONG WITH YOU?

YOU MENTALLY FUCKED UP PERSON!

posting pictures of some stranger and her kids on a PORN WEB SITE. YOU FUCKING, PEICE OF SHIT

you are morally bankrupt and when I tell you that, well you go nuts.

why?

because you are mentally damaged and obsess with me... that I have the nerve to tell you that.

you and the others need help!

no wonder you need higher taxes ... to support your way of life

because you are to FUCKED to make it on your own

Why do you bother? Your delivery isn't very good at all. You couldn't convince a dog to shit in the yard. You should find something better to do with your time. Though, it is a free country, so have at it if you wish.

 

[jeninflorida]

The only thing you fucktards posted was tegulations and things that drive costs up....

Idiots.

No wonder yoy people are living in poverty...

Say

 

[bra_man69]

WHAT THE FUCK IS WRONG WITH YOU?

YOU MENTALLY FUCKED UP PERSON!

posting pictures of some stranger and her kids on a PORN WEB SITE. YOU FUCKING, PEICE OF SHIT

you are morally bankrupt and when I tell you that, well you go nuts.

why?

because you are mentally damaged and obsess with me... that I have the nerve to tell you that.

you and the others need help!

no wonder you need higher taxes ... to support your way of life

because you are to FUCKED to make it on your own

I see you read as good as you write stinky cunt. I never said I posted any pictures of you all I said was there's a thread that shows you have stolen pictures.
If anyone has posted are used pictures with a kid in them that would wait for it you stinky cunt!!!
It's just another example of you stinky cunt of not taken responsibility for your own actions.
You call people names stinky cunt to dodge having to answer questions that's been asked to you there thousands of examples here as proof hell just look in this thread.
You are nothing more then a racist white trash from Florida unemployed uneducated living on government hand outs you come here every day trashing people just like yourself!!
Guess that makes you feel good.

What I pay in taxes in one month is more then you make all year. How many people you have employed working for you stinky cunt I have 8 works for me they all make over40,000 a year 3 of the make over 100,000 a year now what have you really done for the economy?

 

[dan_c00000]

jenn how does it feel to not only be a shitty writer but to get wrecked in your own thread?

Republicans flunk government shutdown history

They wouldn't make the same disastrous miscalculation again. Or would they?
By Steve Kornacki
3
4
0




more












Topics: Republican Party, War Room, 2010 Elections, Barack Obama, Bill Clinton, Newt Gingrich, Politics News

Republicans flunk government shutdown historyFormer President Clinton meets with Republican congressional leaders at the White House Dec. 29, 1995, to discuss the federal budget impasse. From left to right are Robert Rubin, Newt Gingrich, Clinton and Bob Dole.


In the same way that many of them still — after all these years and against all available evidence — would rather chalk up Bill Clinton’s 1992 victory to the presence of Ross Perot than to their own deficiencies, there are Republicans who still refuse to accept the reality of what happened when they forced a shutdown of the federal government in 1995.

That’s probably the best way to understand the eagerness with which so many on the right are now openly agitating for another GOP-forced shutdown.

The idea, of course, hinges on this fall’s elections essentially producing a repeat of the 1994 midterms, with Republicans winning back control of Congress — setting up a partisan balance of power similar to the one that existed in ’95, when Clinton was president, Newt Gingrich was House speaker and Bob Dole was the Senate’s majority leader.

Then, the GOP would do what it did in ’95: take a concept that polls well, fold it into the budget and send it to the president’s desk, daring him to shut down the government by vetoing it. Back in ’95, the hot idea was a balanced budget, an issue that had played an unusually prominent role in the 1992 presidential race. In 2011, it would be healthcare, with Republicans now talking of using the budget to zero out funding for the aspects of the new law that fare the worst in polling. You can already hear the attacks now: President Obama wants to force you to buy health insurance so badly that he’ll close down the government to make it happen!

Gingrich himself helpfully laid out the 2011 strategy a few months ago. Per Dave Weigel:


“By 58 to 38, people want to repeal the healthcare bill. It’ll get worse as people learn more and as the failure of the bill becomes more obvious. So if you take that model, all the Republican Congress needs to say in January is, ‘We won’t fund it.’ What the president needs to decide is: He’s going to veto the bill. He needs to force a crisis on an issue that’s a 58 to 38 issue. And it’s going to get worse. It’ll be 2 to 1 or better by the time we get down to the fight. Because this bill is terrible.”

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

advertisement



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Here’s the problem: The 1995 shutdown was a certifiable disaster for Gingrich and the GOP — the moment they let Clinton, whose presidency had appeared over after the ’94 midterms, back into the game.

From the instant the shutdown began that November, the public sided overwhelmingly with the president, whose job approval ratings instantly recovered to levels not seen since the early days of his presidency. Long derided as slippery and spineless, Clinton portrayed his veto as an act of principle and responsible leadership, while the Republicans were made to look like immature ideological zealots. Virtually overnight, Clinton took the lead in 1996 trial heats against Dole, which he never surrendered.

But Gingrich can’t admit this now. To concede the truth — that a massive strategic error on his part helped pave the way for Clinton’s reelection and that, more broadly, the tone-deaf nature of his speakership represented one continuous, four-year political gift to Democrats — would threaten his role as one of the right’s leading public voices today. So, instead, he’s concocted an alternate history, one that paints the shutdown as a policy and political triumph for the GOP. As he said to Weigel, “Tell me in what way we didn’t win.”

Nor is the actual history of the ’95 shutdown (technically, the ’95-96 shutdown; the second shutdown period lasted one week into the new year) something that the GOP’s Tea Party base is interested in heeding, either. Some of them apparently prefer a different revised history, one that holds that the shutdown would have been a political winner for the GOP, if only Gingrich hadn’t mucked it up by whining about a supposed Air Force One snub from Clinton (and seeming to suggest that the GOP’s budget demands were payback).

Others simply seem oblivious to what happened, displaying the same ideological fervor that marked the far right GOP freshman class of ’94, which came to Washington itching for a showdown with Clinton. As Joe Miller, the surprise Republican nominee for Senate in Alaska, put it last week, next year’s Republicans, if they control Congress, should have “the courage to shut down the government.”

But there really is good reason to believe that a 2011 shutdown would backfire against Republicans just like the ’95 one did. For one thing, the setup is — or would be — awfully similar: a Republican majority in the House with a large, ideologically pure freshman class at its heart that is convinced its midterm election triumph marked a decisive, permanent rejection of a Democratic president and his philosophy.

Gingrich and his House freshmen couldn’t fathom a scenario under which the public would turn on them if they demanded that Clinton sign their balanced budget plan. After all, voters didn’t like Clinton and hated deficits: Hadn’t that been the combined message of the ’94 and ’92 elections? Others on the right saw an added opportunity in a shutdown: How many people would realize that their lives were no worse without the government and become converts to the conservative cause? (That same spirit is in evidence today. Just consider blogger Erick Erickson’s recent declaration, via Twitter, that “I’m almost giddy thinking about a government shutdown next year. I cannot wait!”)

But the logic of the electorate tends to be more contradictory than coherent. Sure, voters hate the idea of deficits and love the notion of a balanced budget. But they also like Medicare, which Gingrich’s GOP targeted for cuts in its plan, and are made uncomfortable by anything that seems radical — like a government shutdown, even if it doesn’t personally affect their lives.

This explains why the ’95 shutdown was such an instant and enduring loser for the GOP. After a months-long game of chicken and with emergency funding for government operations set to expire, Clinton vetoed a stopgap budget passed by Republicans on Nov. 13, triggering a shutdown the next day. The entire government wasn’t closed — hundreds of thousands of workers were deemed essential and kept on without pay – but National Parks were shuttered, some visa and passport services were halted, and some pension and public assistance programs were also stopped.

It was all necessary, Clinton told Americans, because Republicans had tried “to force us to accept extreme budget measures that would violate our basic values as a nation and undermine the long-term welfare of the American people.”

Public opinion immediately favored the White House. A Gallup poll released after the first day of the shutdown found that 49 percent of voters blamed Republicans, while only 26 percent faulted Clinton. By a 48 to 38 percent margin, voters said that protecting Medicare and the social safety net was more important than balancing the budget. And by a 49 to 36 percent margin, they said they trusted Democrats over Republicans to decide which programs to cut in order to balance the budget.

Overall, 48 percent approved of Clinton’s handling of the impasse. For Dole, that number was 32 percent — and for Gingrich, it was just 22 percent. Notably, Gingrich’s infamous “crybaby” moment — in which he groused about being ignored by Clinton on a flight back from Yitzhak Rabin’s funeral earlier that month — came after this poll was released. In other words, present-day claims that public opinion only turned on the GOP after Gingrich put his foot in his mouth are inaccurate: The public was already against them. By Nov. 20, another Gallup poll pegged Clinton’s approval rating at 53 percent, the highest it had been in nearly two years. Suddenly, the ’94 midterm debacle seemed like ancient history.

Quickly, Gingrich and the GOP agreed to a stopgap measure to reopen the government, one without the cuts they sought. When that expired in mid-December, another shutdown ensued, this one lasting until Jan. 6. In that time, nearly 300,000 federal workers were furloughed while 480,000 “essential” employees worked for free. Politically, the outcome was no different: The GOP took the brunt of the blame, while Clinton established presidential stature.

“It’s beginning to look like we can’t run the government,” Marge Roukema, one of the few GOP moderates left in the House, said at the time.

Eventually, a compromise was struck, but Republicans never got their cuts. The episode was a clear triumph for Clinton, who led Dole wire to wire in ’96, ultimately winning 379 electoral votes. You’d think this would serve as a cautionary tale to today’s Republicans. But, instead, many of them seem intent on affirming the cliché about what happens to those who don’t bother to learn history.

 

[jeninflorida]

I get it...we need more welfare

 

[jeninflorida]

Come on...one of you has had to have one job in your lifetime?

I know "socialism...because work is hard"

 

[dan_c00000]

Come on...one of you has had to have one job in your lifetime?

I know "socialism...because work is hard"

Technically, your job is "writing". You do this so poorly you have to give it away for free. Therefore, you're 1. jobless and 2. a socialist.

Also I'm going to refer to as "it" from now. Or imagine you like Grimace.

http://mugsypug.webs.com/photos/The-Grimace/grimace2.jpg

 

[jeninflorida]

Only through non earned "entitlements" can can pay fir food and rent

Sad! Another gb'er with no pride or self worth

Technically, your job is "writing". You do this so poorly you have to give it away for free. Therefore, you're 1. jobless and 2. a socialist.

Also I'm going to refer to as "it" from now. Or imagine you like Grimace.

http://mugsypug.webs.com/photos/The-Grimace/grimace2.jpg

 

[jeninflorida]

Still can't name 1 thing, any democrat has done to improve the economy.


I guess the best thing 'you' have, is that under Clinton taxes went up and that's what made the economy. the Clinton boom had nothing to do with the technology boom, the dot com bubble, or the real estate bubble. only though higher taxes, did the economy grow.

 

[Boxlicker101]

1995 - Sadly, the Democrats lost the House and Senate and nothing got done in 1995

Made it bigger for you so you can read it grandpa

Not much got done in 1995 because the new GOP majority was concentrating on putting together their Contract with America. Once they got that passed, the reduction in entitlements and the increase in the people who had to go to work and pay taxes were parts of the reason for the good economy and the balanced budget. The dotcom bubble, with its large number of unskilled jobs for Americans, was a bigger part.

 

[Boxlicker101]

They're about to approve military action in Syria. That should line a few pockets at Northrop Grumman.

What do you think of this post now?