SPENT - so that is economic activity, that money was used buying products and services, so it does not take money out of the economy, it's PART of the economy. ALL spending is economic activity, even the stuff your economic religion makes you hate.
That money went straight to the government. Instead of being used to buy materials or expanding or hiring people, it went straight to Uncle Sugar. Yes, it WAS wasted. No economic growth resulted from it. Zip. Zero. Nada. They gained NOTHING but more spankings from the statists.
That money was also not wasted, it went towards protecting American people from various horrible dangers.
And just what are the dangers of spilled milk? Who had the great idea of treating milk as a hazardous material?
That is not lost money, it is money invested in the betterment of all our lives!
Millions are unemployed, but by damn, they're safe from themselves thanks to the nanny state.
False dichotomy! Nice try, but I have a more developed brain than that.
You're secret is safe with me. Rehashing talking points does not a smart person make.
No mention at all of the fact that Clinton left bush with a SURPLUS! Bush did not shrink deficits, he inverted a surplus into a deficit, and added two un-paid tax cuts, un-paid for medicare part D, and two wars to the national debt - he was ficscally irresponsible.
Who controlled the House, for the most part, while Clinton was President? Yes that's what libs love to crow about. Where the hell is the alleged liberal deficit hawks from back then? From 2004? From 2006? From 2008? I'll concede that Bush wasn't the most responsible, HOWEVER, the highest the deficit ever got was just over $400 billion. It shrank to $161 billion the year the libs took over Congress and it's been exploding ever since. Now it's over $1.3 trillion and the libs who bitched incessantly about $400 billion are not only silent, but they're keen to run up more.
and raising taxes so that more money was not being spent that was being earned. (I believe that's what deficit hawks want?)
Again, who controlled the purse strings? You forgot to mention the tech bubble which existed at the time allowing for revenues IN SPITE OF the higher taxes.
The collapse was WELL under-way when Bush left office, and it was caused by his lack of regulation and failure to nip it in the bud.
Don't forget that libs like Bawney Fwank and Maxine Waters blocked any and all attempts at the regulation of the GSE of Fwank's boyfriend. It's on video, you know.
followed by political nihalism by the Republcians crippling government and making it unable to act.
How long did Obama enjoy a democrat controlled House and Senate? Which Republicans stopped them from doing anything to "fix" the economy?
The failure to pass much needed stimulus and an even more needed jobs bill (of entirely republican ideas) because of Republican obstructionism is certainly slowing recovery, and may well allow the US to slide into a double-dip recession.
Why didn't Obama do anything REMOTELY useful when his party controlled all three branches then? They had to know they couldn't keep it forever. Surely, if they gave a rotten damn, they should've made all that crap priority number one instead of waiting almost 3 years for a jobs bill. And you still have yet to show that any of it is "Republican ideas". P.S. higher taxes "on the rich" is NOT a Republican idea.
I want four years of something actually being done!
Well you've seen about three, why the hell would you vote for more of the same?
I want to see a jobs bill made up of entirely Republican ideas not filibustered by republicans
Sounds like a good reason to vote Republican, don't it?
- I want to see much-needed action instead of obstructionism.
Sounds like a good reason to vote against Obama, don't it?
There is plenty of blame to go around here, to pile it all on Obama is partisan nonsense.
Hmmm. Funny how between 2001 and the present, everything is Bush's fault. Not a damn thing is Obama's fault, even when he signs his name to it. The democrat demands for home loans for people with no income blowing up in all our faces isn't their fault. Their obstruction of GSE regulation isn't their fault. They're just observers sitting in the bleachers. Now THAT'S partisan nonsense. That and "sabotaging the economy".
If there's "plenty of blame to go around", why do you refuse to do so?
The reality of how the Republicans are sabotaging the economy cannot be ignored.
Obviously it can be manufactured for partisan purposes that benefits NONE of the American people.
We had 50 months of economic expansion and 8.1 million jobs created by BIPARTISAN tax cuts. Remember that the tax cuts of 2001 were phased in over a few years. When we were still losing jobs, we had the tax cuts of 2003 that really got everything going. Remember how fast we bounced back from 9/11? Did anybody really see that coming on 9/12? Why can't we go back to those days? Even that amount of spending would be far preferable to what the economic retards the SCOAMF listens to are recommending.
Bottom line is that we can't go on like this anymore. We've tried letting the children play. It didn't work. Instead of plundering American businesses, we need to let them do what they do. They shouldn't have to fear the iron fist of government and should be allowed to go back to making their plans for the future and hiring Americans.
This sounds familiar, don't it?:
Obama's Re-Election Model Is FDR
With the economy sinking in 1937, Roosevelt accused business of sabotage.
http://anonym.to/?http://online.wsj...4576524753805400370.html?mod=rss_opinion_main
