No. But four years later it certainly was - and that didn't happen. Which is one reason our debt is now $17 trillion.
Actually, that has happened and the real debt number as previously discussed is about 11 trillion dollars. That's why the budget deficit has been cut by more than half and is now consistent with previous deficits. It's why taxes were raised in 2013.
You said Obama had control of Congress - a filibuster proof majority in the Senate - and that was how Obamacare was passed. You were wrong about that. For at most four months, over the Christmas holidays in Obama's first year. It's factually correct. Look it up. At the time, the filibuster rules had not been changed, and that prevented the Democrats from enacting their agenda via having control of Congress. The Republicans did in fact use the filibuster to block most of Obama's agenda, and force radical alterations of everything enacted. Their success was why the filibuster rules were eventually - years later, in Obama's second term when the Dems had long lost the House - changed. The Republicans did not need a supermajority to control the Senate, because the Dems did not use the filibuster to prevent the governance of the country, as the Republicans did. And the filibuster rules were changed, as you pointed out - the current situation is different from Obama's first term, the rules now are not those that prevented the Dems from employing their majorities in the first two years of Obama's first term. There is a reality here. The reality is that "the Democrats" did not control Congress, and were not able to enact their agenda at will despite Republican opposition, in the first two years of Obama's tenure. That's not even true if you assume - against evidence - that "the Democrats" were a united and coherent Party with a common agenda, similar to "the Republicans". This, for example, is how Obamacare (the only major legislation of Obama's tenure to take advantage of the brief window in which the Reps could not block anything they wanted to) was passed: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patient_Protection_and_Affordable_Care_Act Notice difficulty of getting around the Republican opposition, even with the brief ability to overcome a filibuster in the Senate. That's not what "control" looks like.
Sooner or later: The worm will turn and the piper will be paid. Millions dead from our misguided concepts of regime change and incompetence at "nation building". What will you do when we are called to answer for our war crimes?
That depends on what happened to the people who committed them, against our advice and despite our opposition and in denial of our efforts - they would be first in line for the consequences, one would presume?
CBO’s numbers show the total national debt hitting 20 trillion dollars next year. see #46 above A billion here, a billion there, pretty soon, you're talking real money. Poor Trump. If he loses, he loses. If he wins, he wins a country that is 20,000,000,000,000.00 dollars in debt Wow Buddy can you spare me a dime?
The GDP of the US recovered to pre-recession levels by 2010 - and has been growing ever since. The Nasdaq hit pre-recession levels in April of 2011 - and has been growing ever since. The Dow hit pre-recession levels in March of 2013 - and has been growing ever since. But none of that matters. In two years, people are going to say "well, let's wait a while. The economy is barely recovered. After all, some people are still out of work! How could you be so cruel and heartless to raise taxes and cut expenditures when poor Mrs. Mahoney and her four children are still struggling? You heartless bastard!" And they will vote that way. And so the tax increases and cuts will get put off another year or two. Or five. Or ten. And then the next recession will hit - and the president will present his Economic Stimulus and Recovery Act. Hooray for the president! He will spend, spend spend and cut taxes. And the debt will hit $100 trillion dollars. Writers will start realizing that they're really going to have to introduce people to the term "quadrillion." And people will blame . . . the rich bankers. Or the media. Or the politicians, for doing precisely what the people demanded they do. Anyone but themselves.
Well, not surprisingly, your blatant dishonesty continues. You have deliberately lied about what I wrote. I didn't say Obama controlled Congress. I said Democrats controlled Congress. Do you not understand the difference? And the fact remains, your assertion that Democrats didn't control congress when Obama was sworn in because Democrats didn't have a filibuster proof majority is patently absurd. Using your line of argument, as previously pointed out, no party has controlled Congress since 1979 because that was the last time one party had a filibuster proof majority in the Senate. Now you are trying to add in something about the number of filibusters. When Obama was sworn into office Republicans, the period in question here, Republicans hadn't filibustered a single item, not one. You are doing what you always do, digging a deeper hole for yourself. Your continued obfuscation isn't going to change history or make you any less wrong. Democrats did control both houses of Congress when Obama was sworn into office. That's how they passed stimulus and Obamacare. Democrats made the rules, because they controlled Congress, they were the majority just as Republicans are now in the majority and control both houses of Congress. For your edification: http://www.sciforums.com/threads/if-trump-wins-or-loses.157687/page-3#post-3401897
It's a plain statement of fact, and the central political fact of Obama's entire Presidency to date. No, that's your version. I have never argued that the Republicans did not control Congress without a filibuster proof majority - they didn't need one (and the Dems didn't, in decades past), because the Dems (and Reps in past decades) did not use the Senate filibuster to prevent Congress and a sitting President from governing the country. That was a new thing, when the Republicans started doing that in 2009. That changed immediately - not only filibusters, but threats of filibuster, became standard Republican tactics from day one. I linked you to the tactics necessary for getting Obamacare enacted into law. Check them out. Who is it, exactly, who opposes raising taxes on those who have recovered - from a recession they hardly felt, actually ? It sounds like you are confusing quite different political factions. There is a faction that strongly opposes raising taxes on the wealthy. There is a faction that strongly favored stimulus spending. These are not the same factions, the same people. Who are these "people" you disparage? Nobody in my faction is blaming anyone for doing what they, the "reality-based" (in Rove's terms, apparently), demanded be done.
Yes, it is a plain statement of fact, Democrats did control both houses of Congress when Obama was sworn into office. It's also a fact your story has evolved. First you denied they had a majority. Then when that was disproved you said then didn't have a control because they didn't have a filibuster proof majority in the Senate. And when the absurdity of that assertion was pointed out to you, now your saying they didn't have control of Congress because Republicans used the filibuster. You don't think Democrats used the filibuster when they weren't in the majority? If you do, I have some bridges I want to sell you. Filibusters aren't new, nor are they unique to Republicans. Threats of filibusters aren't new either. The fact is you are yet again being dishonest. Using your criteria no party has controlled congress since 1979 (2009 excepted) because no party has had a filibuster proof majority. The unfortunate fact for you is Democrats did control both houses of Congress when Obama was sworn into office. The very fact that they got their legislation through congress clearly shows they controlled Congress. They got Obamacare passed. They got the stimulus passed. They got the auto industry bailout passed, all of which were adamantly opposed by Republicans. I suggest you stop the outright lies. But that's not who you are, is it?
Using them to prevent the government from functioning in general, to break the control of the majority over Senate legislation of any and all kinds, was new. It was centrally, significantly important. It was and has been unique to the Republicans. At one point we had a Rep Senator backing the filibuster of legislation he had sponsored himself - successfully blocking it thereby. Remember?
You are being amnesiac. So you don't remember the Senator who filibustered his own bill, to prevent the routine functioning of the US Congress? http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/mcconnell-filibusters-his-own-bill-to-lift-debt-ceiling Except they didn't, by and large. They got a lot more done than they might have, but a lot less than one would expect from having Congress and the President in the same Party for two years. If you recall, in the campaign of 2012 one of the major themes was how little had been accomplished under Obama. That was mainly due to the bogdown in Congress, and being able to use that superficial fact in the campaigns was a calculated, intended effect of that bogdown.
You are being ridiculous and dishonest. It really is that simple. I'm always amazed by your capacity and willingness to be dishonest.
Most people. You, for example. (And most people DID feel the recession.) The people who support tax cuts for X and support continued spending on Y. (X and Y don't really matter for the purposes of the debt.) Right now 57% of the population thinks income taxes are too high, and less than 50% of the population supports spending cuts on anything other than foreign aid (which makes up considerably less than 1% of our budget.) Those people.
You need to get out more. Not me, for example. And the very rich in the US did not feel the recession, at least not as a very painful experience, if the numbers are any guide. They're back where they started already - actually, they are wealthier; they got back to square one in a couple of years. So conservatives, mainly. Republicans, people like that. Yeah, they do. Not all government spending is created equal, in its contribution to the debt. So your overlap is what, 28 -30%? That's about right - the hardcore Republican voting base.
There is a difference between the public and private sectors when it comes to dealing with spending. The main difference is the private sector is able to create value/wealth when it spends. For example, say we begin with a government agency and a private sector start up company. We will give each $10M at the beginning of the fiscal year. If we assume both are optimized and doing their job well, after one year the government agency needs more money. The business, on the other hand, can become self sufficient, able to create new wealth to cover next year's tab. If the $10M had been given to both as a loan, the taxpayer would get their money back plus a dividend if it gives it to the successful business. If given to the government agency, it may not see its money again. The result is there is lower costs to the tax payer and more value added by going private. The government, as currently set up, is not designed to create wealth. Therefore the larger government gets, the more it shrinks the creation of private sector value/wealth. This is not a criticism of the government worker, but more how the system is designed. Back in the ancient tribal time, the leader might have been the hunter who gathers food for the tribe. This leader is not shaking down his village mates, so he can parade around looking important. He is adding value to the tribe. The hunter gains value by the prestige of his giving and his ability to do an important task so well. In terms of an analogy, the current US government is designed to be like a parasite or virus. He needs a host; taxpayer, to create the illusion of life. What would happen if all taxes ended and there is no more borrowing or printing of money? The answer is the parasite dies or attacks other cells. Business is more like a cell, which has its own self sustaining life. If there are too many virus; big government, the host can reach a point where it can't function properly, and both the host and the virus will both start to decline. The parasite, for survival, will attack the daughter cells, even before they have formed; large debt for the young people, who don't yet pay taxes. What we need to do, which Trump will attempt is treat the government for parasites. It has to be fumigated. There are harmless parasites due to the culture of government; redundancy. There are also HIV caliber parasites in government, which are very persistent and which need to be addressed. Once the host cell is healthy, again, many of the debt problems will solve themselves through a higher level of value added. For example, say we allowed grocery stores to pay their annual tax burden, directly, by providing food to the poor. The food they provide will be subtracted, against their taxes, at average wholesale food prices. They can rotate the food items they offer, to take advantage of seasonal pricing, that are lower than the wholesale averages. This is valued added taxing and incentive.
Correct. A business is also a parasite. It needs a host; customer, to create the illusion of life. What would happen if all customers stopped paying for the product and there is no more borrowing of money? The answer is that the business-parasite dies or attacks other businesses. Trump IS a parasite. He acquires companies, destroys them, pays himself a big bonus and declares bankruptcy, leaving the host dead. But since he can always move on to another host and suck the life out of it, he is a very successful parasite. As an example, he acquired the Plaza Hotel in New York for $390 million in 1988. By 1992, the hotel had accumulated $550 million in debt. He took a hefty bonus, declared bankruptcy, and ran away as fast as he could. How long before he is able to do that to the US government?
