Is Romney Electable?

Nah. You're just brainwashed and don't even know it. So why bother discussing how the artificial inflation you cite, actually led to the collapse before Obama took office? Of the fact that every economic recession or depression is directly attributable to a Republican deregualtion of financial instruments a few years before they occured. Doesn't matter. Facts won't get throught to you. You're a deep kool-aid drinker and I am a real Independent.
This is easy enough to prove. Only a whackjob believes one party is right about absolutely everything, all the time - and the other party is absolutely wrong and completely to blame for every problem.

So what would you say are the three or four best things the Dems & Obama have done in the last few years?
What would you say are the three or four worst things the Repubs have done in the last three or four years?

Buh Bye now. Okay buh bye.

 

Ok keep going, quote the facts from you leave off.
What happens in the failed bush regime next.....after you stop counting.

 

Right .. so Obama was not even in office when the 2009 Budget was passed by Bush and this budget resulted in a 1.4 Trillion dollar deficit.

 

Gifted , Lemme save you some time there buddy. It's simple with blues:

Obama = Bad & to Blame in all cases
Dems = Bad & to Blame in all cases
GOP = Pure and good in every way and always. Keep staring at the spinning circle. Repeat after me...

 

Keep going, you mean the next two final years of his term when the Democrats took over the Congress and the budget and legislation? Well let's see the deficits increased to TEN TIMES where the Bush and the Republicans had them. Unemployed increased to over 10% and stayed over 9% for almost 4 years. GDP shrank to almost nothing and will struggle this year to hit even 2%. The lowest level of civilian labor force participation since the depression which means unemployment is really closer to 11%.

And all Obama has to offer is his shucking and jiving and obnoxious speeches. Smugness is the best he can offer as reason to reelect him.

 

He was a full voting member of the Democrat controlled Congress that ignored Bush's budget proposals. Passed theirs for FY2008 and haven't passed one since.

 

Don't blame me if you ability to comment on political issues is so lacking and you have no ability to refute anything I post. Don't blame me if you have fallen for the Democrat myths in their attempts to pass blame onto Bush for their failures. Don't blame me you weren't paying attention else you wouldn't have to be told these things.

So you want to debate on the facts or are you just going to post your bromides?

 

And when you can't refute on the facts engage in your hyperbole. Oh well.

White flag noted.

 

So let me get this straight.

You are claiming that Bush had no ability to influence the 2008 Budget ?

 

Dead on arrival, a President who has the opposition party in charge of Congress has little influence on their spending. He makes his suggestions as the law requires. He can threaten veto's and actually veto, which Bush did, but bottom line Congress can spend without him which is what they did in FY2009 by just passing a continuing resolution which had automatic increases.

It is quite clear where the Republicans with Bush had the budget heading, it is also quite clear the 180 the Democrats did increasing the deficits TEN FOLD.

 

If all Congress can pass is "continuing" resolution .. then everything else is due to Bush not vetoing it.

Bottom line is that the 2008 crash reduced income from 2.7 Trillion to 2.1 Trillion.

Defense spending increased from 300 Billion to 900 Billion 2000 - 2008.

Add those two numbers up 600 billion + 600 billion = 1.2 Trillion = The Deficit.

We can argue about what caused the 600 Billion revenue shortfall .. but not the increase in Defense spending.

 

It is not required for continuing resolutions, and convince me you voted for him and the Republicans needed to issue those veto's and then sustain them.

Thank you Democrats.

It did nothing of the sort.

 

Continuing resolutions are not the reason for the deficit. You are way to desperate to blame the Dems for everything.

Democrats are not responsible for the Housing bubble, Financial collapse and the crash of 2008. Now you are really getting desparate.

Total defense spending did indeed increase from 300 to 900 Billion.

Defense related expenditures are given as 1.04 Trillion to 1.4 Trillion for 2010.

I left out the interest portion which decreases the total amount to (900 Billion)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget_of_the_United_States

Numbers the link below give defense spending for 2000 budget at 281 Billion .. throw in some extras for Vetrens affairs and so forth and you will not exceed 350 Billion. (Page 158
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BUDGET-2000-BUD/pdf/BUDGET-2000-BUD.pdf

Bush was handed a balanced budget and spent like a wild man.

 

They are certainly a part of it since the Democrats have not passed a budget in over 100 days.

It was the CRA and continue defense and interference running of Fannie and Freddie that caused the collapse and since then their inability to deal with it that has exacerbated it.

No It did not.

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/search/pag...B-4&packageId=BUDGET-2010-TAB&fromBrowse=true

See section 4.

Bush was handed an economy in a slowdown going into a recession which just as it was coming out of it was hit by 9/11. But he did the correct thing cut taxes, assured the security of the country and let business rebuild the economy. Then with the Republicans practiced spending restraint and gave us three years of declining deficits, down to $161 billion. Obama and the Democrats increased them TEN FOLD to $1.6 TRILLION and we have nothing, NOTHING to show for it.

 

No ... but keep trying

Not only do my links support what I stated but your links do to.

Notice how the Department of Defense did not increase under Clinton but skyrocketed under Bush.

I suppose you now want to blame the Democrats for getting us into the Iraq war ?

LOL .. and Obama wasnt.

The Bush budget of 2009 had a 1.4 Trillion dollar deficit.

Your "continuing spending resolution" argument is flawed as is your claim that the Dems were somehow responsible for propping up Freddie and Fannie when the Bush was in full control.

It was Phil Gramm that introduced the Financial Services Modernization Act which led to repeal of the Glass Seagal act of 1933. The FSMA allowed for creation of the speculative instruments that feuled the housing bubble and led to excess speculation which led to the fiancial collapse. (in a nutshell).

 

Yes, you should stop digging.

I linked you to the official budget numbers, they totally refute your claim. Defensed spending did NOT go from $300 billion to $900 billion.

It was a Democrat President who made it our official policy that Saddam and his government could not be allowed to remain in power voted into law by the overwhelming partisan vote of the Congress. It was the overwhelming bipartisan vote of the Congress that authorized the use of our military to accomplish what that Democrat President failed to accomplish. I suppose now you want to deny the role the Democrats played.

There was no budget resolution passed in 2009 and his proposal had to start on what the Democrats had produced in FY2008.

You didn't even know that was what occurred so you sudden attempts to explain them carry no weight.

Nope, Congress controls Fannie and Freddie, do you know ANYTHING about how our government works?

Nope, it was the pressure on banks to lower their standards and then the selling of those mortages to Fannie and Freddie that collapsed the market. The speculative instruments were a result of those actions.

So once again the last budget of Bush and the Republicans was FY 2007 with a deficit of $161 billion. Then Reid and Pelosi took over the budget purse strings. Where did they and then along with Obama take the deficit?