Voters now trust Republicans more than Democrats on eight out of 10 key electoral issues, including, for the second straight month, the top issue of the economy. They've also narrowed the gap on the remaining two issues, the traditionally Democratic strong suits of health care and education.
The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that voters trust the GOP more on economic issues 46% to 41%, showing little change from the six-point lead the party held last month. This is just the second time in over two years of polling the GOP has held the advantage on economic issues. The parties were close on the issue in May, with the Democrats holding a one-point lead.
Voters not affiliated with either party trust Republicans more to handle the economy by a 46% to 32% margin.
Obama at 89% approval among Democrats, 25% among Republicans
by Frank Newport PRINCETON, NJ -- U.S. President Barack Obama averaged a 61% job approval rating for the month of June, down from his 65% average in May, and one point below his previous monthly low of 62%, recorded in March.
Obama's June average is based on 14,914 Gallup Poll Daily tracking interviews conducted in June. The 61% average represents a five percentage-point drop compared to his 66% average for his first 11 days in office, Jan. 21-31, 2009. These two time periods -- Jan. 21-31 and the month of June -- are respectively the highest and the lowest monthly averages for Obama so far. This fairly narrow range underscores the fact that there has not been a great deal of change in Obama's approval rating since he was inaugurated.
(While Obama's approval rating has remained fairly steady, there has been significantly more change in the percentage of Americans who have no opinion of Obama, down from 19% in January to 7% in June, and those who disapprove of his job performance, up from 15% to 32%. Thus, the overall pattern has been a fairly stable positive rating of Obama's job performance, coupled with an increase in negatives occurring concomitantly with a drop in those with no opinion.)
Approval by Party and Ideology
Republicans account for most of the change in Obama's approval ratings from January through June, with their approval shifting downward from 40% in January to 25% today. Most of the change among Republicans came between January and March; Republicans' assessments of Obama have stayed fairly stable since.
Democrats' approval of Obama has remained steady -- and very high -- throughout his presidency, while independents' approval ratings have dropped by three points since January.
Among conservatives, the January-to-June comparison shows a significant drop from 48% to 37% approval of Obama, coupled with a three-point drop among moderates and a three-point gain among liberals.
All in all, as can be seen from the accompanying graphs, the portrait of Obama's job approval rating across the month of June reflects a typical partisan and ideological pattern. Obama's approval rating ranges from highs of 89% among Democrats and 88% among liberals to lows of 25% among Republicans and 37% among conservatives.
Approval by Demographic Groups
There is also a large range of approval across demographic and regional population segments.
Among these groups, Obama finds his highest job approval ratings among blacks, nonwhites in general, Hispanics, young Americans aged 18-29, those who are not married, those with incomes under $24,000 a year, those living in the East, and those who seldom or never attend church.
Obama does least well among those who attend church weekly, whites, those who are married, Americans aged 65 and older, and those living in the South.
Monthly results are based on telephone interviews with samples of 14,000 to 16,000 national adults, aged 18 and older, per month conducted February through June, 2009, as part of Gallup Poll Daily tracking, and a sample of 5,733 national adults conducted Jan. 21-31, 2009. For results based on the total sample of national adults, one can say with 95% confidence that the maximum margin of sampling error for each month is ±1 percentage point.
Interviews are conducted with respondents on land-line telephones (for respondents with a land-line telephone) and cellular phones (for respondents who are cell-phone only).
In addition to sampling error, question wording and practical difficulties in conducting surveys can introduce error or bias into the findings of public opinion polls.
Click below for more on these topics:
This message has been edited by Avalon99 on Jul 9, 2009 9:38 PM
And what do you think it will be by September 30th?
My guess is low 50's ... if he's lucky. He's already dropped to 49% in Ohio.
**************************************
You're thinking that things are going to remain the same for the next 3 years? This is one poll, from one Republican pollster, are you hanging your hat on that?
I see nothing in this admin's plans that is a boon to the business environment ... the people who create the jobs.
****************************
What would that be then? What plans would be a boon to the business environment? I don't know if it is part of the stimulus plan, but, more low interest, or no interest, loans to Small Businesses might be a good thing.
It has been 6 months since Obama took office, the DOW is slowly trending upward.. but, no one, even Obama, said it was going to be easy.
I assume you know at least as much as the Council of Economic Advisors in your assessment of the best methods to promote business, and, at the same time, cut off the greed-mongers from screwing us all?
I assume you know at least as much as the Council of Economic Advisors in your assessment of the best methods to promote business, and, at the same time, cut off the greed-mongers from screwing us all?
Jim...
One wouldn't need to know much to know more than the "council of Economic Advisors to promote business. Ronald Reagan did a fine job in showing how business opertes. You have less regulation and low taxes. Works everyti9me it's tried.
Just do a little thinking. The privte sector provoides 70 percent of the jobs, and the more capital they have in their hands, the more the economy works well providing the goods and services needed by the people. Obama is going in the opposite direction to promote business.
And when the US and OPbama cronies sell coal to China, they will have the cheap energy and the businesses will leave this country because the cost of energy will be prohibitive.
Obviously all you know about business is what Obama tells you.
.....and aware of the TRILLIONS of dollars that DUHbya racked up in war debt, carolyn? I could have sworn that you were.
So typical of your childish logic. Just because Bush spent us into bankruptcy and you griped for eight years, it is perfectly alright for Obama to spend far more. Sure we can afford it.
Janie, you are the most illogical person on this board.
This message has been edited by Poetse12 on Jul 9, 2009 10:21 PM
How? Could it have been greedy government people playing games with your money? And if you were in business, would you want to write a report for everything you did? Would you love the cost of added regulations?
And low taxes with hugh defense spending led to deficits.
So you favor higher taxes and more regulations so that you will have to charge hoigher prices for your goods and services?
So yes those are proven formulaes and they usually yield the same results.
Less regulations led to the financial crisis this time.
There were repotrts that the regulations were there, they weren't enforced? The scam was spotted long ago but no one did anything about it.
And tax cuts with hugh wartime expenses led to deficits.
Seems to be the same results once again.
And it was the government that refused t=regulations because they wanted Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae to contribute to their campaigns. Government corruption is the problem.
I do believe there is a new flock of US based entrepreneurs starting up! If one can't find employment with some of the excellent skills some of these laid off workers have this is an excellent opportunity. I have noticed a number of start ups (including mine) that would not have happened in times of prosperity!
I think voters, in general, come to distrust whatever party is holding sway at any given moment.
***********************
What is the essence of America? Finding and maintaining that perfect, delicate balance between freedom "to" and freedom "from." ~Marilyn vos Savant, in Parade
EMBARGOED UNTIL 6:00 AM SATURDAY, JANUARY 10, 2009
****************
WTF?
Jim...
============
That report was placed on the web earlier than the president's addressing the issue, and it was later released to the public for viewing on the pre-set embargoed date and time. This is done, imo, to ensure documents are error free, accessible via the web, no glitches, beforehand. A good practice. Politico, I think was the first site to have it up for public viewing. And, there have been other web documents "embargoed" as well, then released to coincide with the president's selected timeframe going public. I like that they're ahead of the 'techie' game and they've played it pretty well.
Thus far, Obama hasn't told me anything about business. I know about "business" by working in it. WTF are you talking about?
Well, he hasn't told me anything about business either, bu, since I am not brain dead I have made the following observations:
1. He is spending more money than we have and he wants to continue spending until we are completely broke. That should be obvious even to you.
He wanted China to buy our treasuries. they refused; therefore, the Federal Reserve printed the 300 Billion and lent us the money.
California is paying their bills with IOUs and now the banks are refusing to honor them.
So government is telling you about business, and you just don't observe what they are saying.
I've done very well in "business" and yet, I still am not a braindead thoughtless social conservative like you. Who knew?
Jim..
Being a salesman or working as an employee is not the same as owning your own business and having to meet payrolls and other expenses. When you cannot meet those expenses, you borrow money and eventually go completely out of business because you become like GM,the banks and others who depend on government to bail them out.
Ever been in business for yourself when you had to borrow money to meet the payroll--You don't know squat about business unless you've been there.
This message has been edited by Poetse12 on Jul 10, 2009 12:02 PM
I wish I could mimic that AFLAC duck's sound because that is how I am feeling at this moment.
I understand, AJC, you believe government is the cure all. But they are the ones who drive jobs overseas and most liberals sleep through what is happening.
How? Could it have been greedy government people playing games with your money? And if you were in business, would you want to write a report for everything you did? Would you love the cost of added regulations?
No regulation led to Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. They paid off Barney Frank and Cris Dodd. They were forced to make loans to people who could not afford to pay back their loans. Nothing to do with the market forces.
More Regulations: You have a small business and you have no regulation. Let's say you make $100,000 a year with expenses and cost of goods sold at $80,000. That gives you $20,000 income. Let's say you pay taxes of 10 percent. That's federal and state taxes. That gives you $18,000 to live on. (Now don't worry about how practical this is, I am using this for example purposes only.
Now let's say you get a 2 percent increase in taxes. That means you are paying an addeitional $400 in tax. Your income drops from 18,000 to 17,600.
Now let's say we have more regulation. What happens with regulation? Paper work for which you are responsible. Therefore, you hire someone to fill out the additional forms or you do it yourself. Lets say you hire someone for $500 per year. Your profit is now $17,100. Now do you see how more regulation and more taxes hurt the business?
And low taxes with hugh defense spending led to deficits.
See above. What did the higher tax and more regulation do to my business? Wel;l, I now have less money to invest in new products or spend for new cars, TVs or whatever I want to spend the money for. That means those who build cars and TVs lose sales and the economy slows.
Now If I am going to make my $18,000, I will need to raise my prices and hope that my customers will continue to buy my products. And you can multiply my wituation with all of those who are in similar situations of paying higher taxes and following more regulations. Their prices will also go up.
Now if my taxes are lower and there is no regulation, I do not have to charge high prices in order to make the same profit. Therefore, money fl;ows faster in the economy because people have money to buy goods and services.
Unregulated markets do not work as your simple example tries to show. Greed enters the picture and some individuals maximize their return even if it injures or harms others. So while you may view regulations as something bad - that is a purely simplistic viewpoint and ignores the harsh reality of the market place.
You still continue to interject strawman arguments and avoid what are pretty straight forwards comments.
Reducing taxes which reduces revenues while increasing spending on defense or wartime activities have ended up creating deficits during the Reagan and Bush Sr. administrations.
In business cutting revenues while increasing costs is not a prudent approach.
Unregulated markets do not work as your simple example tries to show. Greed enters the picture and some individuals maximize their return even if it injures or harms others. So while you may view regulations as something bad - that is a purely simplistic viewpoint and ignores the harsh reality of the market place.
Regulations cost more money. That's what the example shows. And as I have pointed out previously, there were enough regulations to keep the meltdown from happening. The regulators closed their eyes. And for Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, Frank and Dodd were the ones who stopped regulation. Therefore, the solution is not more regulation, it is enforcing the regulations that already exist.
You still continue to interject strawman arguments and avoid what are pretty straight forwards comments.
There are no straw men in my arguments. I have given you straight forward answers. You blame greed on Wall Street, but it is government greed and lack of enforcement. There are enough business olaws and auditing procedures that such things should not happen.
Reducing taxes which reduces revenues while increasing spending on defense or wartime activities have ended up creating deficits during the Reagan and Bush Sr. administrations.
There is your straw man. Why did the government give rebates? so that the people would spend more money and get the economy moving. The more money in the hands of the people the more spending. the more spending the more collected in sales taxes and the more jobs are required for those goods and services. That means more revenue--not less. Deficits occur when the government overspends. Look at California. If they had lived withion their means, they would not be in debt. If people lived =withing their means they would not have credit card defaults. If they lived withing their means,. there wouldnot be housing foreclosures. If the government lived within it's means there would not be debts.
In business cutting revenues while increasing costs is not a prudent approach.
No businessman would do that. No individual would do that with his household budget. And now you know why we have an out-of-control government. It was not the war because the war budget never exceeded more than 4 % of the budget. Now if you are in charge of a budget and find that something is required that is 4% of the budget,k you will cut the rest of the budget for that 4 %^
The problem is the lack of control in government spending. That should be obvious, and your problem is you listen to the party line rather than using your one brain to to reach conclusions.
This message has been edited by Poetse12 on Jul 10, 2009 10:57 PM
The problem is that you continue to give explanations that have nothing to do with the comments made.
No, the problem is that you do not understand business nor economics. And you are myopic in your thinking. Example, You are looking at the probl;em ONLY fropm the government's perspective.
As you said no businssman would reduce revenues while increasing costs but that is exactly what Reagan and Bush Sr did.
EVIDENCE:
Every individual, business, and government entity must live within its means. I applied this principle to everyone in every walk of life. You apply it to government Only DURING the BUSH ADMINISTRATION. But Business and economics are always in the present; therefore, the policies of the Obama Administration become the only thing of importance.
Example. You run up a huge debt in your home. The problem this year is how to pay off that debt. ANSWER is to cut spending rather than increasing debt. That applies to individuals, businesses, and GOVERNMENT.
You deliberately applied the principle of over spending and cutting revenue so that you could blast the Bush administration. If you cannot apply the principles to EVERYONE, you are not wanting to learn. You simply want to blame Bush.
Therefore, you continue to give explanations that do not apply to the comments that I made. No wonder you think I ramble. You make up your mind as to the conclusion and anything outside your little box is rambling.
This message has been edited by Poetse12 on Jul 11, 2009 10:24 AM
In your case you think the more you say the better it is but that isn't working for you.
The national debt is a function of the deficits created by each administration.
In Obama's case the 2009 budget was inherited so the only increase he has created so far is the stimulus bill and of that only $78 billions has been spent so that is really the only part of the deficit he is directly responsbile for.
You attempt to convey a superior level of knowledge but each each of your posts undermines that.
You don't understand business or economics better than everybody else and I seriously doubt you understand it better than I do.
You go off on tangents and ignore the issue or comments made to provide your own discourse about whatever subject strikes your fancy.
It is a given you don't like liberal policies and that you vehemently oppose anything Obama proposes.
This message has been edited by ajc122 on Jul 11, 2009 1:49 PM This message has been edited by ajc122 on Jul 11, 2009 1:37 PM
I address each of your points specifically. That is not rambling
In your case you think the more you say the better it is but that isn't working for you.
I explain what each of your points do to business. Tax increases increase cost. Regulations increase costs. the costs must be made up by higher prices or additional sales. I said exactly what needed to be said to address your points.
The national debt is a function of the deficits created by each administration.
Did I say anything that would make you think that I didn't know that?
In Obama's case the 2009 budget was inherited so the only increase he has created so far is the stimulus bill and of that only $78 billions has been spent so that is really the only part of the deficit he is directly responsbile for.
Presidential Administrations do not inherit budgets. Each administration creates its own budgets for each year it is in office. Obama's budget runs in the trillions. You can verify that with a simple google search.
You attempt to convey a superior level of knowledge but each each of your posts undermines that.
I attempt to address each of your points as simply manner as I possibly can. I gave you specific examples of what tax increases and regulations do to a business. That should have been easy enough to understand, but you said it didn't apply because BUSH RAISED SPENDIND AND CUT TAXES. You clearly understood that because you said no busoness man would do such a thing. You wanted to blame Bush. Your intention all the time.
You don't understand business or economics better than everybody else and I seriously doubt you understand it better than I do.
Then you can easily refute my points rather than make assertions. But you make assertions and never refute my points. Why? Is that because you don't understand them? Very likely.
You go off on tangents and ignore the issue or comments made to provide your own discourse about whatever subject strikes your fancy.
Well, itf that's true, you can easily point out how I am avoiding any of the points you have made in this thread or any other thread. If you can't do that, you are simply making assertions rather than seriously looking for information.
It is a given you don't like liberal policies and that you vehemently oppose anything Obama proposes.
So now we are moving from a rational debate about economics to an irrational debate about politics.
Your reasoning is obvious:
Bush created a huge deficit; therefore Obama has the right to create a larger deficit.
You objected to the Bush deficit because he was a Republican. You do not object to the Obama deficit because he is a liberal. That proves political hypocrisy
You objected to the Bush deficit because he spent money on a war defending our country. You do not object the Obama Deficit because he is spending it on us. That proves the selfishness
Bush violated the Constitution.
But it's oK for Obama to create czars that are not mentioned in the Constitution. Does that violate the Constitution.
Now I have specifically addressed each of your issues. So point it out where I have avoided the subject. BTW, You avoid the issues by making assertions and offering no proof
How? Could it have been greedy government people playing games with your money? And if you were in business, would you want to write a report for everything you did? Would you love the cost of added regulations?
No regulation led to Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. They paid off Barney Frank and Cris Dodd. They were forced to make loans to people who could not afford to pay back their loans. Nothing to do with the market forces.
More Regulations: You have a small business and you have no regulation. Let's say you make $100,000 a year with expenses and cost of goods sold at $80,000. That gives you $20,000 income. Let's say you pay taxes of 10 percent. That's federal and state taxes. That gives you $18,000 to live on. (Now don't worry about how practical this is, I am using this for example purposes only.
Now let's say you get a 2 percent increase in taxes. That means you are paying an addeitional $400 in tax. Your income drops from 18,000 to 17,600.
Now let's say we have more regulation. What happens with regulation? Paper work for which you are responsible. Therefore, you hire someone to fill out the additional forms or you do it yourself. Lets say you hire someone for $500 per year. Your profit is now $17,100. Now do you see how more regulation and more taxes hurt the business?
Did you every address my comment about lack of regulatory action causing the S&L crisis.
And low taxes with hugh defense spending led to deficits.
See above. What did the higher tax and more regulation do to my business? Wel;l, I now have less money to invest in new products or spend for new cars, TVs or whatever I want to spend the money for. That means those who build cars and TVs lose sales and the economy slows.
Now If I am going to make my $18,000, I will need to raise my prices and hope that my customers will continue to buy my products. And you can multiply my wituation with all of those who are in similar situations of paying higher taxes and following more regulations. Their prices will also go up.
Now if my taxes are lower and there is no regulation, I do not have to charge high prices in order to make the same profit. Therefore, money fl;ows faster in the economy because people have money to buy goods and services.
Again did you ever address the comment about lowering taxes along with increased defense spending creating deficits?
Did you every address my comment about lack of regulatory action causing the S&L crisis.
I explained that regulation or lack thjereof means nothing. There were plenty of regulations to keep Wall Street from it's mel;t dawn. People l;ooked the other way. 60 Minutes had a segment on that. Regulations did not matter.
The Democrats refused to regulate Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae because they wanted to control those institutions. Regulations would not have mattered because the thieves were riding the institutions.
Despite Regulations, the government insisted on banks making loans to unqualified people who could not repay the loans. There were regulations, but they were overlooked by the regulators.
Now does that answer the question?
You remain myopic because you see only Republicans as thieves. So I addressed all of the regulations INVC+CLUDING the S&L
Your employer pay7s you a salary. Your salary depends on his making a profit.
The more profit he makes, the more taxes he pays. Now if he is taxed too hig, he cannot make a profit sufficient to pay you your salary.
The lower the taxes, the more money people will have to spend to buy things they want and need. The more they spend the more jobs are created because there is greater demand for more goods and services. the less money they have to spend, the fewer jobs are created because the people cannot afford more than their essentials.
Principle as explained before: People living within their means keeps the economy moving because the things they buy are paid for in cash.
Government overspends and causes deficits. doesn't matter what it is spent for, it is overspending and that causes deficits. The more they overspendk, the more taxes they need to get from the private sector and that dirves the prices up and causes people to quit spending.
Collecting more taxes does not solve the problem. Cutting spending is the correct solution.
In Obama's case the 2009 budget was inherited so the only increase he has created so far is the stimulus bill and of that only $78 billions has been spent so that is really the only part of the deficit he is directly responsbile for.
Presidential Administrations do not inherit budgets. Each administration creates its own budgets for each year it is in office. Obama's budget runs in the trillions. You can verify that with a simple google search
Here you go, AJC. I told you that you wanted to0 blame Bush. Obama's budget is for 3.53 Trillion for 2010. He did not inherit that budgetr fro the Bush administration. That is his budget. Why did you not Google to see what the Obama Budget is rather than trying to blame Bush. This has nothing to do with the Bush administration.
3.53 trillion version of the federal budget for fiscal year 2010 late Thursday night in a party-line vote, ending several weeks of acrimonious partisan debate.
The U.S. House passed a $3.55 trillion budget for fiscal year 2010 Thursday night.
The U.S. House passed a $3.55 trillion budget for fiscal year 2010 Thursday night.
The package was approved on a 55-43 vote. GOP Sens. Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, and Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins of Maine -- who voted in favor of the president's stimulus bill last month -- voted against what is essentially the blueprint of Obama's economic policies going forward.
Earlier in the evening, the House of Representatives passed its own version of the spending plan --$3.55 trillion budget, capping off a long day of debate and voting marked by the defeat of several alternative spending plans.
The House version of the budget, which passed by a margin of 233-196, also passed in a virtual party-line vote. All but 20 House Democrats supported it; no House Republican voted in favor.
Neither budget package garnered a single GOP vote.
In London, England,where he has been attending the Group of 20 summit, President Barack Obama lauded the budget votes.
"Tonight, the Senate has joined the House of Representatives in taking an important step toward rebuilding our struggling economy," he said in a statement.
"And by making hard choices and challenging the old ways of doing business, we will cut in half the budget deficit we inherited within four years. With this vote comes an obligation to pursue our efforts to go through the budget line-by-line, searching for additional savings. Like the families we serve, we must cut the things we don't need to invest in those we do."
Don't Miss
* U.S. House passes $3.55 trillion budget for fiscal year 2010
* Dems could use 'fast track' for legislation
* Obama talks up his budget to House Democrats
* Commentary: Big risks if Obama acts boldly on budget
The House budget largely tracks Obama's initial proposed spending plan, with the exception of a decision to drop his $250 billion request for potential future bailouts of struggling financial institutions. Video Watch more on Obama's budget details »
Fiscally conservative House Democrats, known as Blue Dogs, also negotiated with House Democratic leaders to cut $7 billion from the president's $540 billion request for non-defense discretionary spending.
Under the House Democrats' plan, the federal government will run an anticipated deficit of $1.2 trillion in the next fiscal year. Their plan promises to cut the deficit by more than half by 2013.
House Democrats agreed to extend the middle class tax cut that was included in the recently-passed economic stimulus plan, but failed to specify how the cut would be paid for after 2010.
They also included language that allows for the controversial procedure called "budget reconciliation" for health care, a tool that would limit debate on major policy legislation.
Senate Democrats did not include reconciliation in their version of the budget. The matter is guaranteed to be a major partisan sticking point when the two chambers meet to hammer out a final version of next year's spending plan. If it passes, it would allow the Senate to pass Obama's proposed health care reform without the threat of a Republican-led Senate filibuster.
Sen. Mike Enzi, R-Wyoming, speaking for most of his GOP Senate colleagues, warned Tuesday that if a health-care "reconciliation winds up in the budget bill, it'll be like a declaration of war. ... I hope that that wedge doesn't get thrown in there."
Both the House and the Senate version of the budget allow former President George W. Bush's tax cuts for couples who make more than $250,000 to expire in 2010, and both plans let Obama's signature tax cuts -- $400 for individuals and $800 for couples -- expire as well, unless the White House finds a way to pay for them.
Under the House plan, the cuts would expire in 2010; in the Senate plan, they would expire in 2012.
Both plans also do away with Obama's request for an additional $250 billion, if needed, in financial-sector bailout money.
Key differences include deficits and non-military discretionary spending. The House budget would reduce the deficit from $1.7 trillion in 2009 to $598 billion in 2014, House Democrats said, while the Senate Democrats say their plan would bring the deficit down an additional $80 billion.
The Senate bill also calls for less non-military discretionary spending in 2010 -- $475 billion compared to the House plan's $532.6 billion.
Before passing the Democratic budget proposal, the House rejected an alternative proposal put forward by the GOP leadership, which called for $4.8 trillion less in overall spending over the next decade, in part through a five-year freeze in most non-defense discretionary spending.
"House Republicans were united in the desire to find reasonable solutions for middle class families, focused directly on creating jobs, tax relief, and empowering small businesses to survive and grow," said House Minority Whip Eric Cantor.
"The Republican budget was crafted to help those Americans worried about their jobs, their healthcare, their financial security, and their real fears that Washington is spending and borrowing money that America does not have. Republicans offered a comprehensive budget that provides the American people with the ideas, energy and common-sense solutions they are looking for."
Among other things, the House GOP's version of the budget would have repealed the entire $787 billion economic stimulus package except for an extension of unemployment insurance benefits. It also would have rolled back a recently passed 8 percent spending boost in the budget for the remainder of the current fiscal year.
advertisement
Thirty-eight Republicans voted against their own leadership's bill in that vote, while two Democrats voted in favor of it. The final vote was 293-137 against the GOP proposal.
Overall, the Republican version of the budget called for $3.6 trillion less in borrowing over the next 10 years.
E-mail to a friend E-mail to a friend
In Obama's case the 2009 budget was inherited so the only increase he has created so far is the stimulus bill and of that only $78 billions has been spent so that is really the only part of the deficit he is directly responsbile for.
So I just posted the 2010 budget for you. Notice that the 2010 budget has nothig to do with Bush. That is Obama's work. And he wants Universal health care. That will add a for billion more. Now are we on the same page?
Presidential Administrations do not inherit budgets. Each administration creates its own budgets for each year it is in office. Obama's budget runs in the trillions. You can verify that with a simple google search
Of copurse, each president pays the bills of the precedng president. But that is not inheriting the budget fro9m the previous administration.That budget is already made and paoid for or deficited.
Ok. When does the US fiscal budget year start?
And which fiscal budget year are we in?
See, you answered your own question. Now look at what Obama is doing with the budget and quitr blaming Bush for Obama's big spending.
In Obama's case the 2009 budget was inherited so the only increase he has created so far is the stimulus bill and of that only $78 billions has been spent so that is really the only part of the deficit he is directly responsbile for.
Presidential Administrations do not inherit budgets. Each administration creates its own budgets for each year it is in office. Obama's budget runs in the trillions. You can verify that with a simple google search
I answered the questions in a post before this one. But, Ill answer them a=gain jhust for you. Of course Obama has to work with the budget that Bush left him.
Now Bush had deficits in the Billions. So tell me, do you know the difference between deficits in the billions and deficits in the trillions?
You don't [pay attention, do you. You want to blame Bush because Obama is forced to spend more money. Well, are they giving healrthcare away or will that add to the deficits. Will that increase taxes?
At the end of the day, yes, Bush did spend a lot, buit you stay facinated with that point and do not consider what Obama is spending.
I repeat, you are not reasoning, you are a Bush hater.
Obviously, AJC you want to blame Bush for the problems of the deficit. But Obama is the real culprit. He could be a physical conservative and cut spending. But he does Bush economics in SPADES and you can't see it--No you don't want to see it.
I understand you and many others feel Obama is way too liberal.
In the campaign, I kept pointing out he had the(I believe but may be wrong) the 2nd most liberal voting record in the Senate. So no one should have expected him to be a moderate. The voters picked him over McCain (who by the way you say is a Democrat and doesn't belong in the GOP)
Are deficits only bad when created by a Democrat? No they are bad because they prevent the government from having the flexibility to deficit spend when the economy goes in the tank. Such as right now.
Now whether you agree with using stimulus packages to spur the economy in downturns or not that is what has been done in the past and what is being done now.
In fact stimulus was also used by Bush with his tax cuts. Tax cuts versus government spending is something I know that conservatives have strong feelings about and I understand that but both tend to put money into circulation and both ways create a deficit.
By the way I think the answers to the questions are:
Oct and 2009 but you can correct my if you think I am wrong.
I understand you and many others feel Obama is way too liberal.
Makes no difference if he is liberal or conservative. the policies are the things that count because those are the things with which we must live. But your statement shows that you are more inclined to judge on parfty rather than reason.
In the campaign, I kept pointing out he had the(I believe but may be wrong) the 2nd most liberal voting record in the Senate. So no one should have expected him to be a moderate. The voters picked him over McCain (who by the way you say is a Democrat and doesn't belong in the GOP)
Did you see the difference between McCain and Obama in their speeches and debates. Were thy not like two peas in a pod.
Are deficits only bad when created by a Democrat? No they are bad because they prevent the government from having the flexibility to deficit spend when the economy goes in the tank. Such as right now.
Again you make it political. Deficits are bad when the deficts are caused by irresponsible spending. Both parties dothat. So you are politicizing the issue.
Now whether you agree with using stimulus packages to spur the economy in downturns or not that is what has been done in the past and what is being done now.
Tax cuts were done in the past and no bail outs.
John F. Kennedy and Ronal;d reagan. See two parites--non political there was a Chrysler loan, but they paid it back. However, there were a lot of losers in that deal as well. The only one to use Keynesian economics was FDR, and it was generally wasted then. If you cannot create private sector jobs, you are spinning your wheels.
In fact stimulus was also used by Bush with his tax cuts. Tax cuts versus government spending is something I know that conservatives have strong feelings about and I understand that but both tend to put money into circulation and both ways create a deficit.
Government spending creats debt and deficits. So if we wanted to hire everyone as a government worker, we could solve the problem. Real Socialist idea.
By the way I think the answers to the questions are:
Oct and 2009 but you can correct my if you think I am wrong.
Why should I correct you. There was never a disagreement that we are still under the Bush Budget. But you have not paid attention. The Bush budget radn deficits ion Billions while the Obama deficit will be in trillions. That has been my point that you refuse to see farther than the Bush administration.
Read the following paragraph
But left unsaid by the Administration is that the goal it set for the federal budget deficit, $513 billion by 2013, is nearly $60 billion higher than the highest budget deficit recorded during the presidency of George W. Bush. During the presidential campaign, Obama called the lack of spending restraint during the Bush years irresponsible, yet his Administration championed the $787 billion economic stimulus bill, and has proposed a $275 billion housing rescue program, all on top of the $700 billion Wall Street bailout that candidate Obama voted for and President Obama is now administering. That is a record of spending that would make George W. Bush blush, and which undercuts the president's new found fondness for budgetary austerity.
This message has been edited by Poetse12 on Jul 11, 2009 7:51 PM
You really are something else and that isn't a compliment either.
Well, it appears to me that you want everyone to follow Obama just because he is a Democrat. You keep changing the economic debate into a liberal conservative debate. So I could care less about what you think of me.
You indicated it in the post beginning with "I understand you and other liberals think that Obama is far too liberal."
Well, what does the fact that we think he is far too liberal have to do with anything. We are discussing his budget and the effect it will have on the country for generations to come.
So you try to show that I oppose Obama because he is a liberal when in fact I oppose his spending. You thought Bush was way ourt on sp[ending and Obama is not spending too much.
And even in this thread you demonstrate your lack of consistency. You ramble and rant so much that you aren't able to keep thoughts straight even within the same thread.
In Obama's case the 2009 budget was inherited so the only increase he has created so far is the stimulus bill and of that only $78 billions has been spent so that is really the only part of the deficit he is directly responsbile for.
Presidential Administrations do not inherit budgets. Each administration creates its own budgets for each year it is in office. Obama's budget runs in the trillions. You can verify that with a simple google search
Of copurse, each president pays the bills of the precedng president. But that is not inheriting the budget fro9m the previous administration.That budget is already made and paoid for or deficited
Why should I correct you. There was never a disagreement that we are still under the Bush Budget. But you have not paid attention. The Bush budget radn deficits ion Billions while the Obama deficit will be in trillions. That has been my point that you refuse to see farther than the Bush administration
