Yikes! This graphic says it all, doesn't it? There's more telling visuals where this came from.
- The Heritage Foundation - Official FB Page
Category: Non-profit organization Likes: 819874 Talking About: 231828
- The Heritage Foundation: Yikes! This graphic says it all, doesn't it? There's more telling visuals where this came from.
Yikes! This graphic says it all, doesn't it? There's more telling visuals where this came from. Check out our Top 5 in 2013 here: http://herit.ag/19qHe7p
(Type: photo | Published: 2013-12-28T13:45:00+0000)
[david mohler] - Looks like the typical American family's budget...
[brenda stoll] - Wow! And if you think this needs to stop you get called an extremist.
[edith hamlett stutts] - Thank God I'm not typical. . . . . Don't spend what you don't HAVE.
[betty kovlan rogan] - Thanks for setting such a fine example for us BIG GOVERNMET!!!!!
[marcy benoist] - We can't print our own money. They are not doing us a favor.
[aaron k. simmons] - The sad thing is, looking at mortgage payments, college and car loans, and credit card debt, that probably isn't too far from the truth.
[paul wolcoff] - That's congress we need to stop them vote them out and stop the free hand outs
[michael moe] - Either start paying your fair share of taxes or start demanding the government stop spending so much!
[sean porbin] - The future of this family... dependency.
Our county is no different.
[joaquin arguelles] - Why does our government function this way? :(
[jim painter] - We have only idiots in Washington!
[rob armstrong] - tic toc tic toc.....something must and WILL change....not one government system has ever lasted forever, why does anyone think ours will?
[lenore repel] - Ron Paul said "END THE FED" for a very good reason-- were you listening and understanding? Karen Hudes is sending the same message. kahudes.net
[elizabeth boesch larsen] - It is way worse than this analogy.
[donna mcintosh] - smh...we don't have a spending problem!
[joseph d meaux jr.] - It is not their money. So they spend it like it was open credit.
[carl c. hayden] - yeah but do people really need to have a new car every two to three years? do people really need a home mortgage 6 times their income? do people really need to pay for college when trade schools are a better option for guaranteed employment after school? do people really need to get the next and greatest phone, game system, or tv every year or less?
the answer to all of this is no... people should be only in debt for a house and maybe one car that total debt should be equal to less than double of their income... we as a nation need to get back to saving money and spending it wisely... aka traditional mortgage with 20% down, or a car with 25% down... save and pay cash for the toys you want...
if we live like this example pictured here, we would be living on the streets since everything that was owed on would have been repossessed and order by court to pay the remaining debt...
[aldo gandia] - Comparing a family budget to the federal budget is ridiculous. Families don't have to spend money on military bases; wars; scientific research; the health, education and overall welfare millions of citizens; roads to aid commerce and much more. The other reason the analogy doesn't work is because families can't issue bonds to raise money – federal IOUs with very low interest rates. (The interest on the 10-year Treasury note is currently 1.91%, for instance) and families can't raise taxes - Eisenhower's top marginal tax rate was 91%. He used that money to build hospitals, schools and the interstate highway system which led to a robust middle class.
[sharon sapp] - And they won't stop spending...
[dan meyer] - .. 'in Washington'?? Sure looks like its the 'electorate' that are the idiots,... that immovable 47% (and dems) that keeps sucking the life out of the country. The media and society ignores 'cause reality sucks.. I dunno Rob, our country went through the Great Depression, and nothing essentially changed. AND, the people certainly don't remember our history!
[mike lynch] - Short memory effect: How did the USA get into debt?
[justin cloutier] - in the end, there will be more bad than good. and the good that are left, will grow more intelligent to see, wiser to understand, and stronger because of how much more they have to deal with. and eventually, they will realize what it will take to fix the insecurities of bitter and greedy men who have long past yet their systems still infect our societies, and personalities.
[john meyer] - And that's because the federal government doesn't care because they have no steak in the game because they don't make money, they take money.
[donna l. walo-clancy] - I'd like to know where they get the median income figure from- my family doesn't make any where close to that a year and sink further and further into debt each year. We don't own a house and I haven't had a car for three years. I can't pay the regular monthly bills never mind any extras. They need to get real....
[tim fister] - I keep looking but I CAN'T FIND THE BANK TO LOAN ME THE MONEY LIKE THAT!
[stanley a. garrison] - Glancy. But u have the time and money to be on the Internet and FB.
[clint mcdaniels] - Do you mean to tell me the American banking system was set up to keep Americans in debt forever, that is not a news flash to me. How many crooks went to jail over housing fraud of the last two decades? NONE, not a surprise.
[ricardo alvarez] - Nowadays you can get an unlimited mobile plan thru certain cell phone providers for about 50 dollars so you can be on the internet & FB all day lol
[rollie thomason] - @Michael Moe. We are already paying more than our fair share of taxes and the more we make the more we pay. Lets have the 40% of the population that's not paying taxes pay their fair share.
[paul g. pruitt] - Family budgets = federal government budgets....a false and misleading equivalency....try an economics course instead of schooling off Heritage Foundation propaganda.
[susan cannon-carlson] - Paul - why isn't it valid? Please explain and provide facts. Do you think we are in good shape when the debt will reach 20 trillion dollars (5 trillion over the total worth of our entire economy) by the end of Obama's term?
[evan stanley] - Federal budgeting are nothing like family finances. Learn some economics.
[emma culli] - Duh, the banks would never loan to us like that!
[john upton] - 2014 is the Year for Term limits & Fiscal Responsibility. Vote Tea Party & let's get rid of the Problem.
[joan francis] - It's just an analogy, intended to illustrate ratios, not actual lesson in economics. Sheesh! Calm down.
[chris mackey] - It's a flawed analogy for dumb people to take seriously.
[matthew o'hare] - This meme caters to the simpleton that does not understand very basic economic principles, luckily that is the entire Republican base...
[kathryn allen] - If The Heritage Foundation REALLY cared, you'd be talking about THIS! http://www.globalresearch.ca/8-5-trillion-in-taxpayer-money-doled-out-by-congress-to-the-pentagon-since-1996-has-never-been-accounted-for/5358604
[cheryl benjamin] - Lucky those who make 52,000 I make half that
[rollie thomason] - Get in the game Paul G Pruitt. You missed the point and the the point is actually worse than it shows. Heritage didn't say thry were = or related. Just driving it home in a way that relates to the American people.
[susan cannon-carlson] - http://blog.heritage.org/2011/07/28/the-truth-about-obamas-budget-deficits-in-pictures/
[rollie thomason] - @ Matthew O'Hare. Climb out of the fog now.
[steve morris] - Matthew Ohare, Kathryn Allen and Aldo Gandia ... are liberal progressives who confuse people who are "selfish" with people who seek self-reliance and liberty.
They're just too stupid to know the difference.
[susan cannon-carlson] - To Kathryn - 8.7 trillion, if that number is true, represents 500 billion a year. Obama's DEFICIT spending topped a TRILLION dollars per year from 2009 through fiscal year 2012. In 2013, it was 700 billion due to the sequester. TOTAL expenditure4s, including deficit spending and non deficit spending have been from about 3.5-3.7 trillion a year. So the defense budget is somewhere around 13.8% of Obama's spending. The real issue when Obama took office was the entitlements like SS and Medicare, both of which are going bankrupt - but instead of reforming them, Obama just added another entitlement - Obamacare. With the debt expected to reach 133% of the total value of our economy by the time he leaves office, we can't pay for any of it, and the Democrats have done nothing.
[stevo theman] - You don't need to be an economics major to have common sense. That can can be applied to many things going on in this country. Don't listen to these guys who clearly hate this country and what it originally stood for. If you think our govt. is not out of control, you are nuts.
[rollie thomason] - Do the math Cheryl Benjamin. It works the same for you.
[susan cannon-carlson] - http://blog.heritage.org/2011/07/28/the-truth-about-obamas-budget-deficits-in-pictures/
[peter chow] - Great visual example for those who don't understand numbers. Bankruptcy is on its way.
[susan cannon-carlson] - Do any of the detractors of this analogy have ant arguments or facts to address the fact that the debt is now more than the toal value of our economy?
[bill vernay jr.] - So who can stop them
The Heritage Foundation: Yikes! This graphic says it all, doesn't it? There's more telling visuals where this came from. - 50th Comments
[susan cannon-carlson] - Vote out the Democrats - that's a start
[paul g. pruitt] - This may help for those willing to read it... http://rooseveltinstitute.org/new-roosevelt/federal-budget-not-household-budget-here-s-why
[matt nunes] - Evan Stanley, okay, fine. Please use your vast knowledge of economics to describe how spending 25% of GDP, while taking in revenue of 16% of GDP is a recipe for financial security. We'll all wait with bated breath for your masterful explanation. While you're at it, with Mandatory spending expected to exceed 16% of GDP, annually, within 5 years, (CBO estimates) perhaps you can explain how discretionary spending that's currently at about 11% of GDP can continue?
[susan cannon-carlson] - So Paul - what do you think of the debt now being above GDP, with it expected to reach 133% of GDP by the end of Obama's second term.
[chuck scott] - But the only different obamas not accountable for what he spends .. It's free money to him !!
[susan cannon-carlson] - Yes, we have been in debt every year for decades. But we NEVER reached a point where the debt exceeded GDP - until OBama
[carl a. weiss] - On our way to the 7 Region map that was drawn up by the money men in the 1830's. Don't know what I mean then start digging into history instead of doing selfies
[john england] - And, it is dangerous. The Red Chinese, who hold much of the US national debt, are already sabre rattling in Asia. I expect they will use that debt as leverage against us. Just wait and see.
[paul g. pruitt] - "I realize that distinguishing between a sovereign government and a household does not put to rest all deficit fears. But since this analogy is invoked so often, I hope that the next time you hear it used you will challenge the speaker to explain exactly why a government’s budget is like a household’s budget. If the speaker claims that government budget deficits are unsustainable, that government must eventually pay back all that debt, ask him or her why we have managed to avoid retiring debt since 1837-is 173 years long enough to establish a “sustainable” pattern?"
Roosevelt Institute Braintruster L. Randall Wray is Professor of Economics at the University of Missouri-Kansas City.
[susan cannon-carlson] - Paul's article just proved the concern: "Some claim that if the government continues to run deficits, some day the dollar’s value will fall due to inflation; or its value will depreciate relative to foreign currencies. But only a moron would refuse to accept dollars today on the belief that at some unknown date in the hypothetical and distant future their value might be less than today’s value. If you have dollars you don’t want, please send them to me. Note that even if we accept that budget deficits can lead to currency devaluation, that is another obvious distinguishing characteristic: my household’s spending in excess of income won’t reduce the purchasing power of the dollar by any measurable amount". So the federal debt is MUCH WORSE than household debt...thank you for the clarification Paul
[susan cannon-carlson] - Paul - your article just proved the point Heritage is trying to make. They are trying to make Americans see what this debt means in a simple way. What is your argument as to why the 17 TRILLION dollar debt is not a threat, considering GDP is 15 trillion? Facts please
[j. fred easter] - If you don't see the problem...well...
[cibil a. sesco] - Nice to know I work so hard to be more than $20,000 below the median income...
[susan cannon-carlson] - Paul - any comments/facts on why our current debt and debt trajectory is not a problem? You seem bent on proving you can't compare federal amd household debt, but you seem to be missing the real point
[kevin michel] - Just because we can, doesn't mean we should! It will catch up & bite us!
[susan cannon-carlson] - http://www.redstate.com/nikitas3/2011/05/25/about-that-reagan-debt/
[david john] - Do we include mortgages and student loans in this graph?
[susan cannon-carlson] - If you listened closely to president Obama’s April 13 budget speech, you may have heard him say this: “…as far back as the 1980s, America started amassing debt at more alarming levels, and our leaders began to realize that a larger challenge was on the horizon.”
Notice that he started talking about debt in “the 1980s”. That was to pin the old canard on Ronald Reagan that the lower Reagan tax rates on wealthy Americans produced big deficits. Meanwhile Obama himself has produced the biggest deficits in history. So his statement about the 1980s was a classic Democrat tactic to shift the subject.
The Reagan debt was not at all what Obama wants you to think. But to understand it and how liberals manipulate the facts about the Reagan years, it is important to think about how debt is calculated. Because you always have to consider debt in terms of how much money you have overall.
Think of it this way: Imagine you have $50,000 in debt. If you earn $50,000 a year, that is a 100% debt rate. If you earn $1 million a year, that is a 5% rate. So you always have to look at the rate of debt in relation to total wealth, not the raw amount, to better understand the debt burden.
So here are the actual debt figures starting at the end of World War II, based on data from usgovernmentspending.com with the percentage rate of debt:
In 1945 and the end of World War II, GDP (Gross Domestic Product, our annual national wealth) was $223 billion while the national debt was 116% of GDP ($259 billion). The high debt was a result of the huge government costs of World War II.
In 1960, at the height of the Cold War with a very strong economy and still-heavy military expenditures – roughly three times the rate of military spending today – GDP was $526 billion and the national debt was only 54.4% of that GDP. The strong economy was producing lots of revenue to the government, cutting the debt level from 15 years before, and the military budget was cut substantially from 1945.
In 1980, when Ronald Reagan was elected, the GDP was $2.79 trillion, and the debt was 32.6% of GDP. This low debt figure came after Jimmy Carter cut military expenditures steeply during his tenure (1977-1981). And this was at a time of maximum danger. The Soviet Union still had a huge military. Reagan promised, if elected, to turn the US military around.
In the last full year of Ronald Regan’s tenure in 1988, GDP was $5.1 trillion, and the debt was 51% of GDP.
In 1995 under Clinton, GDP was $7.4 trillion and debt was 67.1% In 2001, GDP was $10.2 trillion and debt was 56.5%. By 2005, under George Bush, GDP was $12.64 trillion and debt had grown to 62.8%.
The numbers since 2007 have been: 2007 ($14.08 trillion, 64%), 2008 ($14.44 trillion, 69.15%) 2009 ($14.26 trillion, 83.3%) and 2010 $14.62 trillion, 94.3%). April 2011, it has reached 100% of GDP. In Nov 2013, it reached 113% of GDP. In 2016 it is expected to reach 133% of GDP
[susan cannon-carlson] - Obama and the Democrats have brought debt/GDP ratios to the highest level in American history
[paul g. pruitt] - We have a spending problem and a revenue problem. And if you talk about one, and not the other, you're not taking either problem very seriously....that is all. Happy New Year supply-siders and liberals all!
[robert reinhardt] - that looks like the typical American family to me minus the amount of existing debt
[susan cannon-carlson] - The Bush tax cuts (now the Obama tax cuts) represented 3.7 trillion over ten years. Only 700 billion of that was from the wealthy. The rest benefited the middle class. 700 billion over ten years is 70 billion a year. For most of OBama;s term, until the sequester kicked in, that was 5% of his DEFICIT spending. 2% of total expenditures per year. Barely a drop in the bucket.
[paul g. pruitt] - The trend began well before Obama and the Dems and you are of the mistaken impression that finding someone to blame means you have solved the problem...that is a problem.
[roy black] - Comparing a family budget to government budget is like comparing apples to oranges, but then, you're an idiot, oh well.
[chet ringeisen] - NO we don't have a revenue problem! We have a spending problem!
[roy perlmutter] - What we have here so far is a partially successful USA coup d'etat still underway. Sorry, Muslim Brotherhood Fifth Column Passive Aggressive Overachiever President Barry
[amy snyder haskell] - Wow! I better start spending. I'm wayyyy behind! Lol
[dorothy smallwood] - Families are suffering because they'v hired_____for our govenment socitions, and now they don't fire them. Why!!! It's Not Just Poor People Getting Hosed When Congress Lets Unemployment Insurance Expire On Dec. 28, he will also be among the 1.3 million Americans who will lose their long-term federal unemployment insurance benefits. Unemployment is not just a blue collar problem. As Torian's experience shows, it can affect even Beltway power players. And it comes without much, if any, warning. When the consulting firm that Torian worked for after his time on the Hill folded, there were few options available. He took time off to help his sister tend to their ailing mother, who died at the end of 2012. The Washington resident then went looking for work. While he found that his government affairs experience was a draw, his age, 49, was not. (see asll of aol article
[paul g. pruitt] - Thanks Roy for being the paranoid bigot fouling up on a Heritage blog...surprise surprise.
[haley chace] - Simply put and very telling
[amanda scimone] - Stop the democrates by voting them out and vote conservatives so the house can fix the budget
[joe mikus] - L. Randall Wray takes the fear and loathing out of understanding federal budget deficits.. Am I reading impaired or does it not say "deficits" ?
[steve george] - Roy black explain your apples to oranges please! Because eventually the gov. Will run out of credit just like a household would. Then the collectors are going to come for their money then what?
[ashlynn greyson] - Unsustainable Spending!!! Our Economy is Doomed to Crash.... Things are going to get really ugly...
[diane d. howe schmitt] - Stop spending $$$$$$$$$ you don't have!
[randy linnen] - Isn't this a description of the symptom? What is the heritage centers solution ?
[james abazio] - Yes its ridicules [put it mildly] the money they spend on things
[james abazio] - Saying [above] there are things they do need to spend money on .....War on terrorism....We would be in real trouble without that............
[brooks goodhue] - And look what they got for their money
[allenand sherry ann gaughan] - Soooo true! Obama should put a housewife in charge of the budget!!!!
[andrew chip meecham] - It's a bit confusing. Why would the Wealthiest Country in the history of man have any debt?
[serge e. grynkewich] - Well, that's what the Neocon's did when the led us into two wars on the people's credit card - and enriched themselves and their cronies in the process!
[james le quynh] - But our present administration has wasted 5 years and possibly 3 more years for some other goals ... not ECONOMY! He and the Democrat Congress worked on the me, me, me first, not for the people! Obamacare will only cause an economic slump for the US for a long time to come!!! Our national debt will amount to a price that future generations have to pay. Obamacare program will add to more federal spending without tax basis to support. And this he called a "Reform?" I think we will always be a slave to make end needs ... to satisfy some idiots' egos in DC! Wish all a Happy New Year 2014 and everyone will keep their policy if they want, too!
[kay hunter obrien] - For Pete's sake - try looking at the VOTERS who consistently refuse to become educated - and simply vote themselves goodies...... the media has created and fostered class envy and 'entitlement' has become the new focus instead of liberty.
[kay hunter obrien] - First - eliminate withholding for taxes and make everyone write a check for total due. Then require each agency publish an accounting and accompanying pie chart for where all the money goes. There is bloat and waste in EVERY level of EVERY govt agency. Start by eliminating the federal Dept of Education, the Dept of Energy......... lots of other redundant govt agencies.
[mike bunnell] - @Serge: Your much-hated BIPARTISAN wars started over a decade ago. What's the excuse for the deficit and debt explosion that only started five years ago?
[kevin perryman] - Serge, that is ridiculous. The "two wars" you are talking about haven't even begun to touch our entitlement spending. Normally I would agree with you about progressive republicans. But relative to what the government has spent since we were attacked on 9-11-2001, the war spending is just a drop in the buckets.
[kevin perryman] - http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katehicks/2012/05/27/reality_check_entitlement_spending_dwarfs_wars_since_2001
[paul g. pruitt] - Bush inherited an economic slow-down, the first since Clinton took office, and turned it into a recession through his policies. It didn't have to be that way, in spite of 9/11. Bush's tax cuts were part of the problem, not the solution, almost all economists agree with that statement now, as was his gratuitous war in Iraq.
Bush left us with a $4 trillion debt once you factor in the cost of the near depression which would have occurred regardless of who was President. If McCain had been elected instead of Obama, someone like Heritage on the Left would be taking him to task for "his" $6 trillion or larger debt instead of fixing the blame where it belongs ... with the Bush administration.
Oh, BTW, No President in our history has been able to grow the economy out of a recession as well as Obama has when faced with such determined opposition by the opposing Party to stop him from doing it. No President in history.
The game is "compromise" folks- not vitriolic blame games with fixed and obstinate, ideological rigidity, and once the Republican Party can become the inclusive Party it used to be under such Presidents as Eisenhower, Nixon, Ford, and Reagan; then Congress will be able to get back to governing again. But, so long as the current Republican Party considers three of four of those Presidents RINOs (along with Thomas Jefferson and Abraham Lincoln) then we are stuck with what we have today. Obama is doing the best he can, he is not perfect (neither was Reagan) but he is a good and smart man who some in this thread can only despise and question his citizenship, legitimacy, patriotism, religion and all the otherness factors they can muster citing every extreme right wing source imaginable. Some will only be satisfied when the the 3 sixes mark of the beast is revealed behind his left ear and their investments in bunkers to ride out the apocalypse in style watching Duck Dynasty DVDs, letting their beards grow and waxing rhapsodic on how right they were about Barry's dictatorship from hell.
[ramona weakland warden] - And so now The Heritage Foundation you need to put out a graphic showing what this kind of spending MEANS to the daily life of the typical family.....as in why they should CARE about this.
The Heritage Foundation: Yikes! This graphic says it all, doesn't it? There's more telling visuals where this came from. - 100th Comments
[paul g. pruitt] - https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10152078078803118&set=a.10150179024053118.326871.92021268117&type=1&theater
[phyllis hobbs] - It is crazy how our government wastes the tax payer's money and then keeps borrowing and borrowing and leaving our kids and grandkids and even our great grandkids in debt forever.
[michael norris] - Cool aid, cool aid, taste good! Both parties are guilty of where our country is financially. It is time for a total federal audit and began to eliminate all the waste. And put politicians in there who will work for all Americans, the present administration and congress aren't getting it done
[mikey power] - well said Mr. Paul G. Pruitt!!
[rachel barringer] - I wish people would realize voting doesn't work different head of the same snake
[johnny veloz] - If anyone is interested in a great paying, proven work from home opportunity. I work from home aside a great company and I love what I do, so I thought I would introduce it to my fb friends. To become an Internet Referral Agent, No prior experience or degree needed, you do not have to purchase a kit or packet, mail or assemble anything. I post on the internet, answer calls and assist clients when needed (Customer Service type stuff). You can receive your first pay in as little as 3 days. If you are interested or would like more information send a friend request and then inbox me. Only in the US or Canada!
[patrick john] - Yeah and remember when they were trying to tell everyone who couldn't pay mortgages that they were morally obligated to honor the commitment they made with the bank. When the banks and politicians run away from them all the time or get bailed out. Not us though. So the American people are held to a higher standard? It's supposed to be by the people for the people. I guess it shows that it's not so much anymore!!
[paul g. pruitt] - Thank you Mr. Mikey Power:)
[john ellinger] - Yet some people (the idiots on the left mostly) think we really don't have a problem in Washington.
[kyril wickenberg] - All presidents spent like drunken sailors and that puts drunken sailors to shame
[leo uzcategui] - That is exactly what is happening with the US deficit.
[fred armstrong] - What is the average family income?
[brooks strickland] - No not all presidents spent like drunken sailors. Dont pretend like what is happening now is what has always happened!
[fred armstrong] - The deficit is decreasing. The debt is increasing at a slower rate.
[mario caguimbal] - Obama and his administration are wasting so much on fraud and vacations with no regards to spending.
[paul g. pruitt] - "Hating on government"....the socially acceptable place for gross generalizers spittle flecked stereotypical, broad-brushers. Thanks Reagan...your "welfare queen" myth still gets traction too even though your "medicare = death of freedom in America" didn't quite pan out- as you so vividly predicted in your dulcet and foreboding voice-overs years ago.
[debra cheuvront] - Fred, quit drinking the KoolAid you moron!
[joaquin arguelles] - Why does the government waste so much of MY money? :(
[brad shilliday] - ...and what the funders of this group don't want you to know. http://justicebeforecharity.org/welfare.php
[stan horwitz] - Comparing federal spending with family spending makes no sense. Apples v. Oranges.
The government has many spending obligations that no family has, such as courts, prisons, military, legislator, executive branch and many obligations established by law.
[christine agin] - Still laughing at Paul G. Pruitt's stupidity "no president in history has been able to grow the economy out of a Recession like Obama". LOL First, he had no "opposition" his first two years. This "recovery" is the SLOWEST in American history. And Reagan did it with a Democratic congress. Also, the only thing that has "recovered" under Obama is the stock market, and pumping $85 billion dollars a month into it will do that. He has inflated GDP by increasing government spending (highest percentage of GDP since WWII). I suggest you read more history, get a better understanding of economics, and turn of the Democrat propaganda sites, because you might think you sound smart, but to us in finance and Economics you're funny.
[bob vento] - ... could you spend like this? And for how long before the authorities came and arrested you? The government CONTINUES to SPEND LIKE THIS each and every day. WE THE PEOPLE must put an END to this MADNESS !
[nathan martin] - The US government isn't a family account. Their debt actually expands the money supply without burdening individuals. Why is that important? Individual debt pushes people down. US debt is a more flexible way to expand dollars than by just printing money. When (and if) the people who have been hoarding all the cash start spending, then the money supply can adjust back down without causing uncontrolled inflation. They way I see it.
[evelyn harris] - My income is far from $52000. But, I get it. We can not keep borrowing. It isd a never ending cycle.
[logan gotwald] - The best thing is when libs keep mentioning a decrease in our budget deficit. As if this white house is becoming fiscally sound. It shows that they don't know any history of the debt and deficit issues and that they secretly knew all along that sequester was a good step.
[mike bunnell] - @Stan: It has nothing to do with "obligations", it's about plunging the country ever-deeper into unsustainable debt. Do you understand what just the Interest payments will be within a decade? 15% of all Federal revenue will be poured into the black hole of interest payment - up from 8% today.
[ruth bailey dancy] - Totally Disgraceful. ..
[ernie schultze] - The federal government is not a typical family. They are nothing alike. That is just stupid. Has anyone here mentioned that Obama has cut the deficit in half since taking office? Handed to him by the crazy-war Republicans? Did not think so.
[roger avrit] - What planet do you occupy, Mr. Schultze?
[katherine hazlewood] - Ernie denial is not a river in Egypt - perfect example of uninformed voter - WOW !!!
[shirley m. wall] - Get the facts and eat your words Mr. Schultze.
[josh hager] - Mr Schultze the problem in my mind is that you are happy with the existence of a deficit. You do realize the government spends the taxpayer's dollars right? This mean that debt and those deficits they are operating under belong to me, you, our peers, and following generations!
[stephen kingsley] - Ernie Schultze Yes, the deficit has been cut in half from his first year, when Obama blew it up by a factor of 4. Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid passed continuing resolutions and not a budget for Bush's last year.
Obama's administration added a $878 Billion Stimulus bill and another $ 1 Trillion omnibus spending package to the budget before Obama signed it.
So even cutting the deficit in half since then, it is still more than double any deficit of any previous administration.
And having blown up the 'baseline', where is all of that extra spending going?
[mike bunnell] - @Stephen/Ernie: Actually, the deficit hasn't been "cut in half". That's just an accounting gimmick that moved hundreds of billions of new debt into mid-October after the debt ceiling was removed. We're told to believe in a $680 Billion deficit.... even though the debt increase from 17 Oct 2012-2013 was $882 Billion.
[mike bunnell] - Or, if we want to believe the myth of "only" $680 Billion new debt for 2013, it means you also have to admit this year has already seen $480 Billion new debt in the first three months of FY2014. Oops. http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/debt/search?startMonth=10&startDay=17&startYear=2012&endMonth=12&endDay=31&endYear=2013
[mike bunnell] - @Earnie... Um, how do you declare "crazy-war Republicans", while ignoring the Democrats in Congress and the White House who continued & expanded those wars, then started a new one? (Oh, that's right - it's always someone else's fault).
[robert peebles] - Let's stop invading countries. Let's stop spying on everyone in the world. Let's stop subsidizing for-profit corporations. Wow - we just saved a fortune!
[david smith] - Pretty much what people do with plastic in their wallet... So what's new?
[susan cannon-carlson] - http://blog.heritage.org/2011/07/28/the-truth-about-obamas-budget-deficits-in-pictures/
[lois a. flint] - The one on the right looks like Obamas spending the one on the left looks like the people's
[susan cannon-carlson] - To Paul: Bush's deficits (and I can't believe we are still talking about them FIVE YEARS into Obama's presidency) were under 200 billion a year for 7/8 years. In his last fiscal year, which he shared with Obama, they went up to 800 billion due to the collapse of the housing bubble which the Democrats refused to regulate. Obama then brought the deficit up over a TRILLION dollars a year. This year, the deficit was 700 billion due to the sequester. Still more than three times Bush's deficits. CBS news reported in March of 2012 this: (CBS News) The National Debt has now increased more during President Obama's three years and two months in office than it did during 8 years of the George W. Bush presidency.
The Debt rose $4.899 trillion during the two terms of the Bush presidency. It has now gone up $4.939 trillion since President Obama took office.
The latest posting from the Bureau of Public Debt at the Treasury Department shows the National Debt now stands at $15.566 trillion. It was $10.626 trillion on President Bush's last day in office, which coincided with President Obama's first day.
The National Debt also now exceeds 100% of the nation's Gross Domestic Product, the total value of goods and services.
[susan cannon-carlson] - We now know that the debt under Obama and the Democrats is OVER the total value of our economy. It will reach 133% of GDP by the time Obama leaves office. Obama and the Democrats have REFUSED to compromise. At the last debt ceiling discussions they stated that openly. The Democrats then shut down the government and Obama threatened default, while the media blamed the GOP. The GOP in the House have passed many budgets, and a long term plan to balance the budget called The Path to Prosperity. The Democrats in the Senate blocked every bill from even coming to the Senate floor for debate. The party of "no" is the Democrats. They, and Obama, OWN the economic policies that are destroying our economy and have stopped economic growth
[susan cannon-carlson] - http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/01/06/Obama-no-compromise-debt-ceiling
[susan cannon-carlson] - http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/336777/it-s-spending-problem-yuval-levin
[jason medkiff] - Ernie Schultze I don't even know where to begin with a delusional idiot like you. Please explain your ENRON accounting.
[susan cannon-carlson] - In 2011 and 2012, Obama's budget proposals were voted down without a single Democratic vote in Congress, in the House and the Senaye.
[greg naker ptp] - We can't go on much longer like this...even if we can print money!
[jason medkiff] - Bonds will be the first bubble to burst.
[craig carl conlee] - I thought Obama said when he was running for President that he would cut taxes and support the middle class, I guess it was another lie, just to get the vote.. aren't we stupid,. impeach..
[bonnie cochran] - The problem with our spending is that we have people in our government who are used to paying extravagant amounts for extras that the rest of society aren't able to afford and don't want to afford. If those things break, or don't work, they buy another, but they never check the consumer comments , or review ratings before they buy it.
The Heritage Foundation: Yikes! This graphic says it all, doesn't it? There's more telling visuals where this came from. - 150th Comments
[howie wilmoth] - Collapse the system? all his stuff is a plan.
[willard plamondon] - the Government can not see that. but they will come voting time.
[shauna crosby dickerson] - this is very scary!!!
[kathy ho ho hodel] - Yikes is right!!
[mary simmons] - razy way of living. Some people do exactly this & woder where their money goes.
[karen lewis] - That "free" stuff is coming out of your pocket.
[sherry heim] - Can we say "financial collapse?"
[martha peacock] - this a definite must read
[rebecca sterling] - this does not say it all, since it doesn't explain that having 'money' go through the 'Fed' makes it impossible to ever pay off the debt - EVER.
[derek knudsen] - http://www.taxpayer.net/common-sense/eliminate-corporate-welfare
[mike bunnell] - @Derek: How much additional revenue (funded by customers, of course), will come in after we eliminate "corporate welfare"? For example - their details on the entire oil industry cite $5 Billion per year. Comparing that with $1,000 Billion federal deficits, maybe we haven't actually found the real spending/revenue problem...
[derek knudsen] - http://www.politicususa.com/2012/10/25/bernie-sanders-exposes-18-ceos-trillions-bailouts-evaded-taxes-outsourced-jobs.html
[jt talley] - .
[mike bunnell] - JT: Never met a topic he couldn't totally ignore while posting a ridiculously unrelated picture. Why are you so desperate to change the topic from our failed Federal government's policies?
[marty shaw] - Like most families here in the US, the debt will eventually be paid back. I have been forced to take on debt which I did not agree to take on. So have you if you are a US citizen. Other than my debt as a citizen, I have no other debts nor do I wish to take any on. Live within your means or become slave to the lender.
[nan castle] - A pretty clear graphic analysis.
[alyce coor] - So clear it should be crystal!
[mike bunnell] - @Marty: HOW will the debt "eventually be paid back"? Congressional and White House budget proposals NEVER even reach a balanced budget, let alone a surplus that would allow payment on the existing debt.
[john mencl] - Government economics seems simpler this way.
[dave jenkins] - its a run away train no stopping it.
[monty staton] - We are al,acting black
[ken harrell] - Worth posting again.
[dale pevonka] - And don't forget the interest on that debt. As the credit rating falls, the interest goes up. You owe more.
[linda adams] - We'd be on welfare
[ken smith] - then raise taxes by 12000
[paul g. pruitt] - Really hopeful Christine Agin and Susan Cannon Carlson don't home school their kids with the same warped and factually deficient perspectives they seem to suckle from Breitbart.com. Enjoy your polarizing bias against Obama - the world needs more of his like than yours. Even n opposition you can gain from examining the veracity of your sources. If you were close to right on any of this I could agree with you.
[greg hussein kinney] - I found this illustration of Heritage philosophy, I hope you enjoy it :) http://i.imgur.com/k9vaNH3.jpg
[paul g. pruitt] - Obama shut down the governmen???...revisionist much?? I bet you think the Civil War was really about state rights too Susan....my my my.
[david jenkins] - Revising misinformation. The house proposed many bills to stop the shut down before it began, and to end it once it had started. Mr. Reid and Mr. Obama said they would not negotiate with the "terrorists" in congress. You are entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts. Obama and Reid shutdown the government no matter what the propaganda machine force feeds you.
[paul g. pruitt] - I get it that you don't want to believe it- what with the "Obama spending like a drunken sailor" meme conservatives fancy but - and you can look it up -Spending has remained flat under President Obama. In May, CBO forecast federal outlays for FY 2013 (which ended on September 30) at $3.46 trillion. That's less than the budget George W. Bush bequeathed to Barack Obama in January 2009. Looking ahead, federal spending will start growing again beginning in FY 2015, as the impact of retiring baby boomers and the expenditures for the Affordable Care Act ramp up.
Tax revenue is also starting to rebound after hitting levels not seen since the Korean War. As a percentage of the U.S. economy, revenue plummeted to 14.9 percent of GDP, a low not seen since 1950. The Treasury's estimated take for 2013 ($2.8 trillion) will finally reach the level previous hit in 2007. It should also be noted the extent to which the Bush tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 drained--and continue to drain--Uncle Sam's coffers. Only in 2006 did the Treasury collect as much revenue as it had in 2000.
[paul g. pruitt] - Simply put, there is no crisis to justify the additional spending cuts Republicans are now trying to extort. As it turns out, federal spending has hardly budged and deficits have plummeted since Barack Obama first took the oath of office in January 2009.
[lennox e. lewis] - Only morons and liberals can't see this.
[lennox e. lewis] - Only morons and liberals cant't see this fact.
[rob corbit] - Stop Comparing our table to yours Dumb$hits...Your table has a large hole in it for you to sit and spin on the KOCH bros..
[tim webster] - Paul, Bush didn't inherit an economic slowdown, he inherited a recession. The Bush tax cuts didn't make it worse, the economic effects of 9/11 did.
[paul g. pruitt] - posting it twice doesn't make it any truer Lennox. There is no doubt who shut down the govt and it was and is usually moron republicans opposing a democratic president
[tim webster] - From the CBO's 2013 report: The coming rise in debt won’t be driven by low taxes. For the last few years, we’ve seen folks argue that the nation’s unusually high deficits are merely a product of extraordinarily low federal tax revenues. But going forward, that won’t be the case. By 2038, the CBO projects that tax revenues will equal about 19.5 percent of GDP. The post-war average is about 17.5 percent. So the rise in debt is set to occur even with a noticeably higher portion of the economy flowing into federal coffers.
[paul g. pruitt] - Bush's tax cuts combined with invasions on credit made it worse, far worse.
[tim webster] - According to the 2013 CBO report, three things will be the driving force to high deficits; 1) Entitlement spending 2) Rising healthcare costs 3) Increasing debt payments
[don ellsworth] - Have to take the control of spending away from them
[tim webster] - Continual spending at increasing levels, even when revenues dropped, is what made it worse. Baseline budgeting is what made it worse. Increasing the size and scope of government influence and power, thereby increasing government dependency is what made it worse, before, during and after Bush.
[mary judith dickens] - which they would never be able to pay off
[paul g. pruitt] - "The average of our past revenue isn’t sufficient to sustain our future. In fact, it wasn’t even enough to support our past. Revenue of 18.5 percent of GDP would have been sufficient to balance only three budgets in the past 50 years -- all of them in the 1960s. The only balanced budgets of recent history came in the late 1990s and early 2000s, when growth was strong and revenue ranged from 19.5 percent of GDP to 20.6 percent. Our average tax receipts over the past 40 years have contributed to average deficits of 2.6 percent of GDP. That’s not terribly worrying, but it’s going to get worse. A lot worse. Projected deficits are driven by two factors: health-care costs and old people. The coming years will bring more of both. Today, the elderly make up 13 percent of the U.S. population. By 2050, they’re expected to be 20 percent. There’s no way that the tax receipts of the 1980s will support the demographics of the 2020s or 2030s. Anyone who says otherwise isn’t taking the numbers seriously, or is planning cuts to Social Security and Medicare that dwarf anything that has been openly discussed in Washington. Resistance to tax increases hasn’t stopped the government from growing, and it certainly won’t stop the population from aging or arrest the costly advance of health- care technology." http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/12/07/yesterdays-tax-revenues-cant-support-tomorrows-america/
[tim webster] - From the 2013 CBO report; The biggest factor is the growth of entitlement spending. The price tag for America’s major health care programs and Social Security obligations will double as a percentage of GDP—hitting 14 percent in 2038, which the report notes is twice the 7 percent average of the last four decades.
[tim webster] - From the 2013 CBO report; Spending on governmental functions aside from entitlements and debt service is set to decline as a percentage of the economy. The non-entitlement, non-debt portion of the budget has averaged about 11 percent of GDP over the last four decades. But it’s on track to decline to just 7 percent of the economy.
[tim webster] - Using actual government spending increases on entitlements, as a % of GDP and a total % of government since 1940, you see why we have high taxes... And it's going to get much worse, not better; http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/entitlement_spending
[tim webster] - The government has never been able to collect taxes more than 19% of GDP for any long length of time, no matter the top marginal tax rate; http://mercatus.org/sites/default/files/Chart%20image_1.png
[paul g. pruitt] - Well stated Tim, of note though-our tax rates under Obama are lower now than they were under Reagan and much lower than they were under Eisenhower. The "Obama spending like a drunken sailor crowd" don't seem to notice this fact.
[tim webster] - Since we have an unsustainable budget, where is Obama's plan to ever balance the budget? Or where is the plan to have long term deficits lower than $500 billion? An amount that Obama called Bush unpatriotic for having a $468 billion deficit.
[paul g. pruitt] - Any plan he offers is immediately obstructed, even when it largely resembled plans Repubs once favored. There are several grand bargains on the shelf but for the tea party stymied house repubs unwillingness tp work with the man.
The Heritage Foundation: Yikes! This graphic says it all, doesn't it? There's more telling visuals where this came from. - 200th Comments
[tim webster] - Paul come on, you know better. Obama has not made ONE proposal to cut REAL spending, only the "growth" in spending, and only by minimal amounts. The "grand bargains" are a bunch of government gimmicks, that both parties use, that will result in ZERO cuts to actual government spending. The REAL answer is, Obama has NO plan.
[robert beebe] - Most of the spending is on the military and Bush's wars.
[tim webster] - Btw, Bush spent too much. He was a social conservative, but not a fiscal conservative. Obama is doing the same, but increasing spending in other areas. He's not spending like a drunken sailor, but is just shifting spending. Baseline budgeting is driving the budget up every year, no matter who's in office. Bottom line is, spending is the problem, not revenue. Spending will have to be dramatically cut, and it needs to be real spending cuts, not cuts in the growth of spending.
[tim webster] - Robert, get a clue, not it's not.
[chad maddox] - Every Democrat proposal is for immediate spending with promises of future cuts. Call it Tea Party obstruction if you want but the truth is that we finally realize that those "future promises" are complete bs.
[paul g. pruitt] - Republicans oppose further tax increases on the rich, as Democrats demand, so Democrats will not support major changes to Medicare and Social Security, as Republicans insist....and the beat goes on....but 2012's Grand Bargain could have happened but for sustained and obstinate ideological rigidity.
[tim webster] - The "rich" are now paying the same rate as during the Clinton administration, 39.6%. That's what you liberals said you wanted. Now you got that, you're not happy. And as the chart I posted, you can't "tax the rich" to solve the deficit/debt problem, as you aren't going to bring much money into the Treasury. And that is born out by tax history for the last 70 years. The Democrats won't EVER support major changes to Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Obamacare, etc... because they are the liberal social engineering programs they insist on ramming down our throats, even though they are failures.
[paul g. pruitt] - The question I have is, do the richest pay enough in taxes to make up for the extra advatages their wealth affords them? simply because they live in our society that is not available to the rest of us because we are not as wealthy and is totally independent on their ability to be productive; I personally do not think they do.
Nor do I think the tax code takes into account the natural unfairness built into any unrestrained Capitalist system that, because of its nature, provides positive feedback to those who succeed and NEGATIVE feedback to those who either "just do OK" or fail; this is the "rich-get-richer and the poor-get-poorer" effect. [Positive feedback means once the status quo is broken, those on the wining end keep winning at an accelerating rate, while Negative feedback is just the opposite.]
This leads back to my first point, because our system supports Capitalism, and rightly it should, the more powerful capitalists become, the better able they are to influence the tax laws effective them, therefore increasing their wealth and power even further[; much more so than their less wealthy fellow Americans.]
Corporate oligarchy ... left on its own, that is where Capitalism leads when uncontrolled. Capitalism [if allowed to] naturally redirects wealth from the poor to the rich, I don't call that welfare for the rich simply because it is a function of the operation of Capitalism itself; I like [the term] redistribution myself.
Consequently, it is my opinion, the government has every right to 1) correct that redistribution and let the less wealthy participate in the bounty of America's success and 2) counteract the ability of the wealthy to positively influence government and financial activity in order to increase their wealth without any productive activity that the rest of us have to put in to earn a dollar.
[dennis plasse] - We'd have the money, there'd have to work.
[tim webster] - Wow David, You are either a Socialist or border line Socialist. Why do YOU think YOU are "due", because YOU aren't as financially successful as someone else?
[don kerr] - Can't be true....Pelosi says the government doesn't have a spending problem..!!
[paul g. pruitt] - Talking about progressive taxation and whether the very richest pay enough taxes, said nothing about being "due" anything. Did YOU read the post?
[tim webster] - Yes Paul I read the post. Which was full of redistribution. FYI, between local, state, federal and other taxes, the rich are paying taxes at near 30 year high. Also, with tax credits, those making less than 30K have a negative effective tax rate.
[mike bunnell] - @PaulPruitt: Where do you come up with the ridiculous claim that $3.46 Trillion is less than Bush's 2009 budget proposal - which was actually $3.1 Trillion? A budget which was never enacted, because the (D)-controlled Congress played the Continuing Resolution game. http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BUDGET-2009-BUD/pdf/BUDGET-2009-BUD-31.pdf The only way to make the fairy tale of reduced spending work is to believe the ONE TIME spending of 2009 (which Senator Obama voted for and President Obama continued) was a new baseline for all future spending.
[russ courville] - There are those who blame this all on Bush. They refuse to look at the facts.
[mike bunnell] - Yup - $160 Billion (R) deficit = end of the world. $1,300 (D) deficits = no big deal. Partisans gonna partisan. Funny how we're supposed to believe the guy in office today has no power or control over anything, while the guy who departed five years ago still runs the show...
[paul g. pruitt] - Hi Mike Bunnell: Courtesy of Marketwatch-
•In fiscal 2010 (the first Obama budget) spending fell 1.8% to $3.46 trillion.
• In fiscal 2011, spending rose 4.3% to $3.60 trillion.
•In fiscal 2012, spending is set to rise 0.7% to $3.63 trillion, according to the Congressional Budget Office’s estimate of the budget that was agreed to last August.
•Finally in fiscal 2013 — the final budget of Obama’s term — spending is scheduled to fall 1.3% to $3.58 trillion. Read the CBO’s latest budget outlook.
No doubt, many will wish to give the credit to the efforts of the GOP controlled House of Representatives. That’s fine if that’s what works for you.
However, you don’t get to have it both ways. Credit whom you will, but if you are truly interested in a fair analysis of the Obama years to date—at least when it comes to spending—you’re going to have to acknowledge that under the Obama watch, even President Reagan would have to give our current president a thumbs up when it comes to his record for stretching a dollar.
[mike bunnell] - @Paul: Once again, that myth only works if you pretend ONE TIME spending (TARP then Stimulus) was the new baseline. How do you "fall" from $3.1 Trillion to $3.46?
[mike hewitt] - They never passed a budget for the first 3+ years. Which is against the law !
[cheryl horn] - and.... can't wait until the world decides to remove the dollar as currency standard. there's an agenda being perpetrated, that's y there's no effort to change the trajectory. Gonna b interesting how this plays out
[harry bratton] - Obama owned FY2009. Reid and Pelosi held it hoping and until Obama won. The stimulus was added and Obama signed it. He owns the 2009 deficit. Hasn't spending every year under Obama been higher than every year under Bush? Given what we know happend in 2009 maybe.
[mike bunnell] - Adjusted for inflation, 2013 spending was 17% above 2008. But why bother with inconvenient Facts...?
[ty hodge] - Hi Guys!! This is a new page I set up in hopes of helping myself & others try to find a way for our country to be more efficient. It seems to me our biggest domestic product is actually waste!! It absolutely generates billion$ every year at our cost.
If YOU agree, Please visit, share & "LIKE"!
Corporations have flagrantly taken over our country via our very own US Government. The irony is that we actually SUPPORT this. It's way past time to wake up, weed out the unwanted, un-needed, useless and valueless providers of goods & services. If we need it, we'll come to you. There is ABSOLUTELY NO NEED for your intrusive harassment, it can ONLY serve to lessen your reputation & credibility.
[debra caldwell] - Communist one Democrat.
[nick gonzalez] - Is there a way to put this in easier terms for Dems...?? Like maybe using jumbo jacks or or minutes on the obamaphones.???
[paul g. pruitt] - How dare Obama pass a stimulus when the economy was collapsing? You assume that Obama is FOR spending. Yet the only definitely spending bill that Obama got passed was the stimulus. (Affordable Care, according to the CBO was revenue neutral, agree or disagree.)
So if you want to cut spending, and if you believe as you do that the Republicans are more likely to want to cut spending, then one wonders where the Republican bills to cut various spending items are. If, as you assume, that Obama wants to increase spending, then you can't seriously expect that Obama would propose spending cuts, can you?
But the Republicans, your friends, have not made a single suggestion. Not one. My point: spending under this president has risen largely because of the underlying financial crisis, helped by more seniors in need of medical care. In negotiations over the deficit he has conceeded much more in cuts than he has gained in revenues, so he is not wedded to spending.
[paul g. pruitt] - ...and thanks for the thoughtful posts, though your contention that I don't bother with inconvenient facts' undid some of that for me...I concede your point on the rosy math though...kinda like Bush not including the Iraq war spending in his budget :) Good night and good luck....truly.
[paul g. pruitt] - "Obamaphones"...Reagan started that BTW...in case you missed it. Its not Obama's program Nick Gonzalez... as if you care.
[mike bunnell] - @Paul: 1. Based on the intended results, the Stimulus was a miserable failure (we were supposed to hit 7% Unemployment in 2010, not the end of 2013). 2. Whether we agree with the Stimulus or not, it was still one-time spending (along with TARP) and disingenuous to include when making claims about subsequent spending changes.
[mike bunnell] - @Paul: I almost missed it - you're actually asking where the Republican bills to cut spending were? Sorry, but you're now a flat-out liar to claim they never made any proposals, which means this conversation is over. Hint: Look into how many spending bills were passed by the House in the past 2-3 years, then ignored by Harry Reid's Senate.
[paul g. pruitt] - Dead wrong on the stimulus...On the most basic level, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act is responsible for saving and creating 2.5 million jobs. The majority of economists agree that it helped the economy grow by as much as 3.8 percent, and kept the unemployment rate from reaching 12 percent. The stimulus is the reason, in fact, that most Americans are better off than they were four years ago, when the economy was in serious danger of shutting down.
[tim webster] - Obama and "stimulus"?? LOL You mean the stimulus that didn't stimulate? You mean the stimulus that the administration was the first one to redefine words and success to say that a job created or "saved", which everyone knew was impossible to define? You mean the stimulus that Obama said if you give him the money, unemployment wouldn't go above 8%, and it would be 5% by the end of his first term? You mean that stimulus that was suppose to be "shovel ready jobs", yet Obama admitted that wasn't the case? You mean the stimulus from the administration that was suppose to help the economy, of which this is the slowest and worst economic recovery since the depression? You mean that "stimulus"?????
[paul g. pruitt] - Republicans learned a lesson from the stimulus that Democrats didn’t expect: unwavering opposition, distortion, deceit and ridicule actually work, especially when the opposition doesn’t put up a fight. The lesson for Democrats seems equally clear: when government actually works, let the world know about it.
[tim webster] - Name ONE Democrat, just ONE, including Obama that have made or recommended REAL spending cuts (a proposed cut in the "growth" of spending, or cut in "proposed" spending, is NOT a cut in spending)???? Name just ONE.
[tim webster] - And regarding the "Obamaphones", it was expanded by Nancy Pelosi in the House, in 2008, to include cell phones. Isn't it ironic that the company providing the cell phones is owned by one of the richest men in the world, Carlos Slim, who happens to be a Mexican national. Pretty funny, a Mexican citizen, rich, providing phones for the poor of America. Sweet.
[betty willis] - Paul, put down the Kool aid and read the REAL facts about the stimulus at the CBO website! No 2+ million jobs (only 250,000 new fed govt jobs; median income has fallen from $48,500 to $40,850; and enough of fantasy terms like "most economists" - when you have no idea how many economists there are. All we know is that economists supporting Obama think it worked well while all others cite data that show the money was the biggest waste/ fraud in US history!!! But luckily you didn't 't keep going with the validity of global warming!!!!! Either step away from the reporting bias of Obama lemmings, or post under a pseudonym to save at least a sliver of self respect!!!!!