wf3h wrote:
On Mar 21, 3:48 pm, John H wrote:
On Sat, 21 Mar 2009 12:38:21 -0700 (PDT), wf3h
wrote:

Obama lied, the economy died.

Amen.

let's see....

bush was president for about 2800 days.

obama's been president for 60.

even you should be able to do the math.

$1.2 Trillion in spending above and beyond the normal budgets in less
than 60 days. Obama has set a record for all future Democrat presidents
to strive to beat. Obama has set the extra appropriations spending bar
very high.

On Mar 21, 5:34*pm, BAR wrote:
wf3h wrote:
On Mar 21, 3:48 pm, John H wrote:
On Sat, 21 Mar 2009 12:38:21 -0700 (PDT), wf3h
wrote:

Obama lied, the economy died.

Amen.

let's see....

bush was president for about 2800 days.

obama's been president for 60.

even you should be able to do the math.

$1.2 Trillion in spending above and beyond the normal budgets in less
than 60 days. Obama has set a record for all future Democrat presidents
to strive to beat. Obama has set the extra appropriations spending bar
very high.-

that's for the next year. you don't know about the budget process do
you?

republicans reagan, bush and bush have nearly bankrupted this country.
clinton was the only president in recent history to balance the
budget.

bush starved the middle class to feed his friends at exxon. now we're
paying the price

"wf3h" wrote in message
...
On Mar 21, 5:34 pm, BAR wrote:
wf3h wrote:
On Mar 21, 3:48 pm, John H wrote:
On Sat, 21 Mar 2009 12:38:21 -0700 (PDT), wf3h
wrote:

Obama lied, the economy died.

Amen.

let's see....

bush was president for about 2800 days.

obama's been president for 60.

even you should be able to do the math.

$1.2 Trillion in spending above and beyond the normal budgets in less
than 60 days. Obama has set a record for all future Democrat presidents
to strive to beat. Obama has set the extra appropriations spending bar
very high.-

that's for the next year. you don't know about the budget process do
you?

republicans reagan, bush and bush have nearly bankrupted this country.
clinton was the only president in recent history to balance the
budget.

bush starved the middle class to feed his friends at exxon. now we're
paying the price

Clinton did not balance the budget!!! He looked like it, but even worse he
allowed spending to grow a lot more under his watch than it should of. He
was the fortunate recipient of tons of revenue from the Dot.com boom and
then bust. He also was hindered in excess spending for a couple years by
Newt and the Contract with America. Reason that California is bankrupt.
They grew spending and made it permanent during the same dot.com boom. Grew
government 10% a year over the last 8 years. One of the absolute worse
things in Federal government is totally the fault of Democrats and happened
under Carter. That is "BASE LINE BUDGETING"! Who runs a business with a
built in spending inflation of about 13%. The rate of inflation during the
Carter disaster. Is why Congress says they cut spending 5% but the program
still ends up with 8% more money. One of the first two things Obama should
do is lobby to remove Base Line Budgeting. Is a Legislative branch feature
and not an Executive branch feature. And the 2nd thing is to go to court
and get tossed out the court ruling that the Executive branch HAS TO SPEND
all money allocated by the Legislative branch. This says that the Executive
branch has no check on spending. Before Carter, the Executive branch just
did not fund these "earmarks" that Congress passed. Kept the money unspent.

On Mar 21, 9:52*pm, "Calif Bill" wrote:
"wf3h" wrote in message

bush was president for about 2800 days.

obama's been president for 60.

even you should be able to do the math.

republicans reagan, bush and bush have nearly bankrupted this country.
clinton was the only president in recent history to balance the
budget.

bush starved the middle class to feed his friends at exxon. now we're
paying the price

Clinton did not balance the budget!!! *He looked like it, but even worse he
allowed spending to grow a lot more under his watch than it should of.

gee whiz...how much is 'than it should have'? because bush ballooned
the budget out of control with his war in iraq, his tax cuts for the
super rich, etc.


*He
was the fortunate recipient of tons of revenue from the Dot.com boom

that's called the 'economy'. it happens.

"wf3h" wrote in message
...
On Mar 21, 9:52 pm, "Calif Bill" wrote:
"wf3h" wrote in message

bush was president for about 2800 days.

obama's been president for 60.

even you should be able to do the math.

republicans reagan, bush and bush have nearly bankrupted this country.
clinton was the only president in recent history to balance the
budget.

bush starved the middle class to feed his friends at exxon. now we're
paying the price

Clinton did not balance the budget!!! He looked like it, but even worse he
allowed spending to grow a lot more under his watch than it should of.

gee whiz...how much is 'than it should have'? because bush ballooned
the budget out of control with his war in iraq, his tax cuts for the
super rich, etc.


He
was the fortunate recipient of tons of revenue from the Dot.com boom

that's called the 'economy'. it happens.

Nope, it was a financial disaster. Similar to what we have now, not as big.
And caused by the same Fed screw ups on interest rates. Iraq cost less in 7
years than Obama and this Congress have spent in the last 60 days. What are
your feelings one what that is going to do for the "Economy"?

On Mar 22, 12:49*am, "Calif Bill" wrote:
"wf3h" wrote in message

...
On Mar 21, 9:52 pm, "Calif Bill" wrote:





"wf3h" wrote in message

bush was president for about 2800 days.

obama's been president for 60.

even you should be able to do the math.

republicans reagan, bush and bush have nearly bankrupted this country.
clinton was the only president in recent history to balance the
budget.

bush starved the middle class to feed his friends at exxon. now we're
paying the price

Clinton did not balance the budget!!! He looked like it, but even worse he
allowed spending to grow a lot more under his watch than it should of.

gee whiz...how much is 'than it should have'? because bush ballooned
the budget out of control with his war in iraq, his tax cuts for the
super rich, etc.

* He

was the fortunate recipient of tons of revenue from the Dot.com boom

that's called the 'economy'. it happens.

Nope, it was a financial disaster. *Similar to what we have now, not as big.
And caused by the same Fed screw ups on interest rates. *Iraq cost less in 7
years than Obama and this Congress have spent in the last 60 days.

iraq costs are estimated anywhere from 1-3 trillion dollars. and
you're saying that's irrelevant? i dont think so.

and they did not 'spend' this in the last 60 days. this will be spent
over the next year or so. that's called a 'budget'.

*What are
your feelings one what that is going to do for the "Economy"?-

keynesian economics works. milton friedman's monetary policy worked to
a certain degree but the fed is out of options at this point since its
interest rate is now about zero.

"wf3h" wrote in message
...
On Mar 22, 12:49 am, "Calif Bill" wrote:
"wf3h" wrote in message

...
On Mar 21, 9:52 pm, "Calif Bill" wrote:





"wf3h" wrote in message

bush was president for about 2800 days.

obama's been president for 60.

even you should be able to do the math.

republicans reagan, bush and bush have nearly bankrupted this country.
clinton was the only president in recent history to balance the
budget.

bush starved the middle class to feed his friends at exxon. now we're
paying the price

Clinton did not balance the budget!!! He looked like it, but even worse
he
allowed spending to grow a lot more under his watch than it should of.

gee whiz...how much is 'than it should have'? because bush ballooned
the budget out of control with his war in iraq, his tax cuts for the
super rich, etc.

He

was the fortunate recipient of tons of revenue from the Dot.com boom

that's called the 'economy'. it happens.

Nope, it was a financial disaster. Similar to what we have now, not as
big.
And caused by the same Fed screw ups on interest rates. Iraq cost less in
7
years than Obama and this Congress have spent in the last 60 days.

iraq costs are estimated anywhere from 1-3 trillion dollars. and
you're saying that's irrelevant? i dont think so.

and they did not 'spend' this in the last 60 days. this will be spent
over the next year or so. that's called a 'budget'.

What are
your feelings one what that is going to do for the "Economy"?-

keynesian economics works. milton friedman's monetary policy worked to
a certain degree but the fed is out of options at this point since its
interest rate is now about zero.

**************

The Trillion is not the budget. That is separate pork.

"wf3h" wrote in message
...


clinton was the only president in recent history to balance the
budget.



Favorite myth perpetuated by some Democrats, but unfortunately not true.
Spending under Clinton increased by almost 30%, but tax revenues increased
by 85%.
The "deficit" spending increased in each year of his 8 years in office.
The increased tax revenues where not planned for or expected and served to
decrease the deficit of his own budget, particularly in 2000, but did not
balance the budget. The "surplus" was really a reduction of a negative
number (that still remained negative) of the yearly budgets. This is
really creative economics at it's best. It's like saying, "I expected to
lose 1000 dollars at the race track, but I only lost 500, so I have a 500
dollar surplus".

The increased tax revenues? They came primarily from the other liberal
arch-enemy .... business.

Eisboch

On Mar 22, 6:21*am, "Eisboch" wrote:
"wf3h" wrote in message

...



clinton was the only president in recent history to balance the
budget.

Favorite myth perpetuated by some Democrats, but unfortunately not true.
Spending under Clinton increased by almost 30%, but tax revenues increased
by 85%.
The "deficit" *spending increased in each year of his 8 years in office..
The increased tax revenues where not planned for or expected and served to
decrease the deficit of his own budget, particularly in 2000, but did not
balance the budget. * The "surplus" was really a reduction of a negative
number (that still remained negative) of the yearly budgets. * This is
really creative economics at it's best. * It's like saying, "I expected to
lose 1000 dollars at the race track, but I only lost 500, so I have a 500
dollar surplus".

ROFLMAO and even playing by THOSE crooked rules the GOP managed to
sack and pillage the US economy. god how incompetent they are.


The increased tax revenues? * They came primarily from the other liberal
arch-enemy .... business.


and business just got it back. in spades. paid for by the middle
class.

wf3h wrote:
On Mar 22, 6:21 am, "Eisboch" wrote:
"wf3h" wrote in message

...



clinton was the only president in recent history to balance the
budget.
Favorite myth perpetuated by some Democrats, but unfortunately not true.
Spending under Clinton increased by almost 30%, but tax revenues increased
by 85%.
The "deficit" spending increased in each year of his 8 years in office.
The increased tax revenues where not planned for or expected and served to
decrease the deficit of his own budget, particularly in 2000, but did not
balance the budget. The "surplus" was really a reduction of a negative
number (that still remained negative) of the yearly budgets. This is
really creative economics at it's best. It's like saying, "I expected to
lose 1000 dollars at the race track, but I only lost 500, so I have a 500
dollar surplus".

ROFLMAO and even playing by THOSE crooked rules the GOP managed to
sack and pillage the US economy. god how incompetent they are.

The increased tax revenues? They came primarily from the other liberal
arch-enemy .... business.


and business just got it back. in spades. paid for by the middle
class.


Once again, I believe the large players in the financial services
industries -stocks, bonds, banks, insurance companies, et cetera- need
to be very closely regulated by public agencies AND they all need to be
rated regularly by organizations like A.M. Best. The recent debacles in
financial services prove there is no reason to trust their financial
reports or the reports of their outside auditors.

We also need to bust up the big national banks. Too much of our economy
is tied up in the hands of too few. We really cannot afford to have
banks "too big to be allowed to fail." These huge financial services
companies provide no needed public service attributable to their size,
compared to the risk to us they impose.

And credit swap derivatives? Crikey.