wolw..china does about 10,000 tests a day for the virus....we have done a total of 500 ….
Wake Up, America! Wake Up! PLEASE!!
- Thread starter Drillher4me
- Start date
- Status
willing to destroy the country to benefit the party!
Republicans Keep Admitting Everything They Said About Obama Was a Lie
White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney, appearing on Fox News Sunday, repeated the official administration line that Democrats had to choose between legislation and investigation. Chris Wallace reminded Mulvaney that he had supported a Republican Congress that had engaged in continuous investigations of the White House, reopening probes to chase conspiracy theories even after they had been conclusively debunked.
This prompted Mulvaney to make an interesting confession. The Republican Congress never wanted to pass laws in the first place:
When somebody says “I’ll be the first to admit,” it’s usually an idiom, suggesting they are not trying to hide a fact that is widely known and frequently confessed. But in this case the sentence construction makes more sense if read literally. Mulvaney may actually be the first person to admit that congressional Republicans did not want to give Obama any legislative successes at all.
Mitch McConnell boasted that he pressured Republicans to refuse to compromise with any of the Obama administration’s priorities in his first two years (“We worked very hard to keep our fingerprints off of these proposals. Because we thought — correctly, I think — that the only way the American people would know that a great debate was going on was if the measures were not bipartisan.”).
Yet after Republicans won control of Congress on the shoulders of a tea party wave of debt hysteria in 2010, a conventional wisdom took hold that President Obama needed to get Republicans to make a deal. Most outside observers conceded that the congressional GOP might not be the easiest negotiating counterparty. Still, Obama was widely held to bear a share of the blame for his inability to get Republicans to make a deal. He didn’t play enough golf with them, or ******* enough with them, or “lead.” The idea that Obama could and should ******* Republicans to make deals with him was pure conventional wisdom for years on end.
As a high-profile link between the Obama-era Republican Congress and the Trump administration, Mulvaney has retrospectively clarified a lot of points people refused to understand at the time. Mulvaney casually confessed last week that nobody cares about the deficit. Mulvaney of course spent the Obama era claiming to care about the deficit a lot — so much, indeed, that he was willing to shut down the government or even default on the national debt in order to reduce it. The debt hysteria was manufactured to cover a different agenda. Republicans wanted to ******* Obama to reduce popular domestic spending programs so they could cut taxes for the affluent. But since neither cutting retirement programs nor reducing taxes for the rich are popular goals, Republicans framed their policy as “deficit reduction,” and the debt-scold community and most of the mainstream news media took this framing at face value.
That’s one reason why Obama couldn’t make a deficit deal with Republicans: They didn’t care about the deficit. Also, as Mulvaney now casually concedes, they didn’t want to give him any accomplishments at all, so even if Obama offered a deal they could live with, they would have opposed it rather than allow him to claim legislative success.
The Republican Party of the last quarter century regularly toggles between methodological extremes. When they gain the presidency, they dismiss congressional oversight and fiscal responsibility alike as totally unnecessary. When they relinquish it, they pursue both to fanatical extremes. Either they are blowing up the deficit and covering up wild crime sprees, or they are demanding senseless austerity and conducting permanent, redundant investigations of phantasmal Fox News–generated nonevents.
Typically, they roll out a new cast of characters to justify the stance of the moment and allow the old ones to fade into the sunset. The Clinton-era inquisitors of Capitol Hill were gone from the scene when the Bush administration was escaping oversight and rolling up debt. The Bushies faded into the background when Obama-era Republicans waxed hysterical about debt and scandal. Now a new reversal is upon us. Unfortunately for Trump’s party, Mulvaney is still with us to answer for the past.
nymag.com
Republicans Keep Admitting Everything They Said About Obama Was a Lie
White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney, appearing on Fox News Sunday, repeated the official administration line that Democrats had to choose between legislation and investigation. Chris Wallace reminded Mulvaney that he had supported a Republican Congress that had engaged in continuous investigations of the White House, reopening probes to chase conspiracy theories even after they had been conclusively debunked.
This prompted Mulvaney to make an interesting confession. The Republican Congress never wanted to pass laws in the first place:
When somebody says “I’ll be the first to admit,” it’s usually an idiom, suggesting they are not trying to hide a fact that is widely known and frequently confessed. But in this case the sentence construction makes more sense if read literally. Mulvaney may actually be the first person to admit that congressional Republicans did not want to give Obama any legislative successes at all.
Mitch McConnell boasted that he pressured Republicans to refuse to compromise with any of the Obama administration’s priorities in his first two years (“We worked very hard to keep our fingerprints off of these proposals. Because we thought — correctly, I think — that the only way the American people would know that a great debate was going on was if the measures were not bipartisan.”).
Yet after Republicans won control of Congress on the shoulders of a tea party wave of debt hysteria in 2010, a conventional wisdom took hold that President Obama needed to get Republicans to make a deal. Most outside observers conceded that the congressional GOP might not be the easiest negotiating counterparty. Still, Obama was widely held to bear a share of the blame for his inability to get Republicans to make a deal. He didn’t play enough golf with them, or ******* enough with them, or “lead.” The idea that Obama could and should ******* Republicans to make deals with him was pure conventional wisdom for years on end.
As a high-profile link between the Obama-era Republican Congress and the Trump administration, Mulvaney has retrospectively clarified a lot of points people refused to understand at the time. Mulvaney casually confessed last week that nobody cares about the deficit. Mulvaney of course spent the Obama era claiming to care about the deficit a lot — so much, indeed, that he was willing to shut down the government or even default on the national debt in order to reduce it. The debt hysteria was manufactured to cover a different agenda. Republicans wanted to ******* Obama to reduce popular domestic spending programs so they could cut taxes for the affluent. But since neither cutting retirement programs nor reducing taxes for the rich are popular goals, Republicans framed their policy as “deficit reduction,” and the debt-scold community and most of the mainstream news media took this framing at face value.
That’s one reason why Obama couldn’t make a deficit deal with Republicans: They didn’t care about the deficit. Also, as Mulvaney now casually concedes, they didn’t want to give him any accomplishments at all, so even if Obama offered a deal they could live with, they would have opposed it rather than allow him to claim legislative success.
The Republican Party of the last quarter century regularly toggles between methodological extremes. When they gain the presidency, they dismiss congressional oversight and fiscal responsibility alike as totally unnecessary. When they relinquish it, they pursue both to fanatical extremes. Either they are blowing up the deficit and covering up wild crime sprees, or they are demanding senseless austerity and conducting permanent, redundant investigations of phantasmal Fox News–generated nonevents.
Typically, they roll out a new cast of characters to justify the stance of the moment and allow the old ones to fade into the sunset. The Clinton-era inquisitors of Capitol Hill were gone from the scene when the Bush administration was escaping oversight and rolling up debt. The Bushies faded into the background when Obama-era Republicans waxed hysterical about debt and scandal. Now a new reversal is upon us. Unfortunately for Trump’s party, Mulvaney is still with us to answer for the past.
Republicans Keep Admitting Everything They Said About Obama Was a Lie
White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney confesses the GOP Congress refused to give Obama any successes.
nymag.com
Immigration reversal as deportations top border arrests
Illegal immigration across the southwestern border is down so much that Homeland Security is now deporting more people each month than it captures coming across, officials announced Thursday, saying they’re now able to eat into the backlog of cases that built up during last year’s surge.
amp.washingtontimes.com
that is where all of your posts come from ….fiction area....and comedy central....you rarely post anything worth reading
For someone with no time ya sure spend plenty of time tellin us ya got no time
as usual you are behind the times
Ex-inspector general at U.S. Department of Homeland Security indicted for stealing government property
The U.S. Department of Homeland Security's former top watchdog, tasked with rooting out waste, fraud and abuse, was indicted on Friday on charges he plotted to steal the government's proprietary software and confidential databases to boost his private business, the Justice...
mobile.reuters.com
On the Economy, Republicans Have a Data Problem
In 2004, when fewer people paid attention to him, Donald J. Trump gave CNN a bottom-line assessment of political parties: “It just seems that the economy does better under the Democrats.”
If that sounds awkward now for Mr. Trump, who leads opinion polls for the Republican presidential nomination, it may be even more awkward for his party next year, because its ability to claim superior economic know-how over Democrats has grown weaker ever since he made that assertion.
Like his rivals, Mr. Trump offers the familiar Republican recipe of tax cuts to spur growth and create jobs. But on the economy, Republicans have a data problem.
The party still likes to invoke its success under President Ronald Reagan, who cut taxes after defeating Jimmy Carter in 1980. By the mid-1980s, stagflation had turned into an economic boom.
But neither of the two subsequent Republican presidents fared as well compared with their Democratic successors. That has left the party vulnerable in three ways.
One is the most prominent economic indicators. During the single term of the first President George Bush, growth slowed, while unemployment and budget deficits grew.
Those measures improved under his Democratic successor, Bill Clinton. Growth accelerated to an average annual rate of 3.8 percent, exceeding the level under Mr. Reagan. Unemployment fell to 4.2 percent, from the 7.3 percent he inherited. The budget moved from deficit to surplus.
They went backward again under President George W. Bush, who cut taxes in his first year. But his second term ended in financial crisis and recession, with unemployment at 7.8 percent. The budget surplus became a trillion-dollar deficit.
Growth has remained modest under President Obama, but unemployment has dropped to 5.1 percent since the recession ended five months into his term. The budget deficit as a percentage of the overall economy has fallen to 2.5 percent from 9.8 percent.
A second problem for Republicans stems from their own rhetoric. Mr. Clinton and Mr. Obama pushed through tax increases despite warnings from partisan adversaries. Among many other Republicans, the current presidential candidates Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz, John R. Kasich and Jeb Bush all denounced the “job-killing” consequences of Mr. Obama’s policies.
Yet the economy gained 2.9 million jobs in 2014, more than in any year since 1999, during Mr. Clinton’s term. Net job creation during the 15 years that Mr. Clinton and Mr. Obama occupied the White House has topped 30 million. That is 50 percent more than were created in the 20 years of Mr. Reagan and both Mr. Bushes.
A third problem for Republicans is the comparison between the United States and its international counterparts. As Mr. Obama’s tenure began, the recession in the United States was dragging down other advanced industrial countries.
Today, the United States has the strongest major economy in the world. According to data compiled by a Moody’s economist, Mark Zandi, the United States had higher economic and job growth than Australia, Britain, Canada, Germany, France and Japan in the 12-month period through June 2015.
“‘Strongest’ is of course quite different from ‘strong,’” said Keith Hennessey, an economic adviser to the younger President Bush. Wages for average families have barely budged under presidents of both parties for a generation.
In any case, economic data cannot resolve arguments over specific policies. The role of business cycles, technological innovation and demographic change, not to mention Congress and the Federal Reserve, can exceed the influence of presidents on economic performance.
In an interview, Jeb Bush argued that the Clinton-era economy benefited from a budget deal that his ******* forged. His brother’s record, he added, suffered from “big secular events” like the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks and the bursting of the high-tech bubble.
But the language of election argument begins with a simple concept: on whose watch. Which means that, among Mr. Trump’s contentious statements, his words about economy and party may be harder than most to explain away.
www.nytimes.com
In 2004, when fewer people paid attention to him, Donald J. Trump gave CNN a bottom-line assessment of political parties: “It just seems that the economy does better under the Democrats.”
If that sounds awkward now for Mr. Trump, who leads opinion polls for the Republican presidential nomination, it may be even more awkward for his party next year, because its ability to claim superior economic know-how over Democrats has grown weaker ever since he made that assertion.
Like his rivals, Mr. Trump offers the familiar Republican recipe of tax cuts to spur growth and create jobs. But on the economy, Republicans have a data problem.
The party still likes to invoke its success under President Ronald Reagan, who cut taxes after defeating Jimmy Carter in 1980. By the mid-1980s, stagflation had turned into an economic boom.
But neither of the two subsequent Republican presidents fared as well compared with their Democratic successors. That has left the party vulnerable in three ways.
One is the most prominent economic indicators. During the single term of the first President George Bush, growth slowed, while unemployment and budget deficits grew.
Those measures improved under his Democratic successor, Bill Clinton. Growth accelerated to an average annual rate of 3.8 percent, exceeding the level under Mr. Reagan. Unemployment fell to 4.2 percent, from the 7.3 percent he inherited. The budget moved from deficit to surplus.
They went backward again under President George W. Bush, who cut taxes in his first year. But his second term ended in financial crisis and recession, with unemployment at 7.8 percent. The budget surplus became a trillion-dollar deficit.
Growth has remained modest under President Obama, but unemployment has dropped to 5.1 percent since the recession ended five months into his term. The budget deficit as a percentage of the overall economy has fallen to 2.5 percent from 9.8 percent.
A second problem for Republicans stems from their own rhetoric. Mr. Clinton and Mr. Obama pushed through tax increases despite warnings from partisan adversaries. Among many other Republicans, the current presidential candidates Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz, John R. Kasich and Jeb Bush all denounced the “job-killing” consequences of Mr. Obama’s policies.
Yet the economy gained 2.9 million jobs in 2014, more than in any year since 1999, during Mr. Clinton’s term. Net job creation during the 15 years that Mr. Clinton and Mr. Obama occupied the White House has topped 30 million. That is 50 percent more than were created in the 20 years of Mr. Reagan and both Mr. Bushes.
A third problem for Republicans is the comparison between the United States and its international counterparts. As Mr. Obama’s tenure began, the recession in the United States was dragging down other advanced industrial countries.
Today, the United States has the strongest major economy in the world. According to data compiled by a Moody’s economist, Mark Zandi, the United States had higher economic and job growth than Australia, Britain, Canada, Germany, France and Japan in the 12-month period through June 2015.
“‘Strongest’ is of course quite different from ‘strong,’” said Keith Hennessey, an economic adviser to the younger President Bush. Wages for average families have barely budged under presidents of both parties for a generation.
In any case, economic data cannot resolve arguments over specific policies. The role of business cycles, technological innovation and demographic change, not to mention Congress and the Federal Reserve, can exceed the influence of presidents on economic performance.
In an interview, Jeb Bush argued that the Clinton-era economy benefited from a budget deal that his ******* forged. His brother’s record, he added, suffered from “big secular events” like the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks and the bursting of the high-tech bubble.
But the language of election argument begins with a simple concept: on whose watch. Which means that, among Mr. Trump’s contentious statements, his words about economy and party may be harder than most to explain away.
On the Economy, Republicans Have a Data Problem (Published 2015)
Neither of the two Republican presidents since Ronald Reagan fared as well as their Democratic successors.
After this flash in pan of corona virus blows by I hope media is held responsible for screaming fire in the theater
in other words......trickle down economics does not work
How past income tax rate cuts on the wealthy affected the economy
Under the GOP’s recently released framework, the top income tax rate would return to George W. Bush-era levels. The GOP has historically claimed reducing the top tax rate will create economic growth, but that hasn’t always happened.
After months of speculation, President Donald Trump and GOP leadership released their “Unified Framework For Fixing Our Broken Tax Code” on Wednesday. In addition to cutting the corporate tax rate and ending various deductions and loopholes, the plan significantly changes the individual income tax rate structure.
The plan would reduce the number of income brackets from seven to three: 12%, 25% and 35%, but keeps open an option for an additional tax rate bracket for the richest Americans. This is coupled with nearly doubling the standard deduction to $12,000 for individuals and $24,000 for joint filers. The GOP did not release the endpoints for where the three income brackets would fall.
Currently, the highest income earners pay a 39.6 percent marginal tax rate. Under the GOP plan, they would pay 35 percent. In addition, the plan would repeal the alternative minimum tax and the estate tax, another cut that would aid the wealthy.
According to the released plan, “an additional top rate may apply to the highest-income earners to ensure that the reformed tax code … does not shift the tax burden from high-income to lower- and middle-income taxpayers.”
However, as the plan stands now, the highest-income earners would see their top tax rate return to the levels that followed President George W. Bush’s tax cuts. Since Bill Clinton’s administration, the highest income tax bracket has hovered around 35 percent to 40 percent.
Before Ronald Reagan’s presidency, those who fell into the highest tax bracket paid over half of their income in income tax. Just after World War II and into the 1950s, the rate was over 90 percent.
A history of taxing the rich
Like much of the industrialized world, the United States did not begin imposing income tax on the wealthy until the 1910s. Since its introduction, the tax rate has varied wildly.
Source: Thomas Piketty, Paris School of Economics
When tax cuts are given to the wealthy, lawmakers often justify the cut by claiming it will spur economic growth. The Tax Foundation, a nonpartisan, conservative-leaning think tank, argued in its analysis of Trump’s 2016 campaign proposal that lowering the top income tax rate would lead to increased job opportunities.
This core tenet of supply-side economics guided Reagan and Bush during consideration of their proposed tax cuts. Still, it's unclear whether cutting the income tax on the wealthy boosts economic growth.
Take, for example, the Reagan administration’s full embrace of the theory, which coincided with economic growth in the mid-1980s. Many supply-siders use this example to advocate for cutting tax rates further.
On the other hand, Bush’s administration proposed and Congress enacted a set of supply-side-focused tax cuts in 2001 and 2003 that some blamed for the Great Recession.
The Congressional Research Service published a paper in 2012 that found no correlation between top tax rates and economic growth. Congressional Republicans protested the findings, and the service briefly withdrew the paper.
Republicans argued that the CRS paper had methodological errors, namely that it didn't account for the long-term benefits of tax rate cuts. The paper looked only at effects on growth within the first year of the cuts.
POLITICO looked at each time the country changed the top income tax rate and the following five years of GDP per capita growth rate. The results are similar to the CRS findings: changing the top income tax rate does not have a predictable effect on economic growth.
The unpredictable effect of changing income tax rates on the wealthy
Since World War II, the tax rate has changed significantly six times. The effects on the economy were different each time: the tax rate on high income earners has no relationship to economic growth.
www.politico.com
How past income tax rate cuts on the wealthy affected the economy
Under the GOP’s recently released framework, the top income tax rate would return to George W. Bush-era levels. The GOP has historically claimed reducing the top tax rate will create economic growth, but that hasn’t always happened.
After months of speculation, President Donald Trump and GOP leadership released their “Unified Framework For Fixing Our Broken Tax Code” on Wednesday. In addition to cutting the corporate tax rate and ending various deductions and loopholes, the plan significantly changes the individual income tax rate structure.
The plan would reduce the number of income brackets from seven to three: 12%, 25% and 35%, but keeps open an option for an additional tax rate bracket for the richest Americans. This is coupled with nearly doubling the standard deduction to $12,000 for individuals and $24,000 for joint filers. The GOP did not release the endpoints for where the three income brackets would fall.
Currently, the highest income earners pay a 39.6 percent marginal tax rate. Under the GOP plan, they would pay 35 percent. In addition, the plan would repeal the alternative minimum tax and the estate tax, another cut that would aid the wealthy.
According to the released plan, “an additional top rate may apply to the highest-income earners to ensure that the reformed tax code … does not shift the tax burden from high-income to lower- and middle-income taxpayers.”
However, as the plan stands now, the highest-income earners would see their top tax rate return to the levels that followed President George W. Bush’s tax cuts. Since Bill Clinton’s administration, the highest income tax bracket has hovered around 35 percent to 40 percent.
Before Ronald Reagan’s presidency, those who fell into the highest tax bracket paid over half of their income in income tax. Just after World War II and into the 1950s, the rate was over 90 percent.
A history of taxing the rich
Like much of the industrialized world, the United States did not begin imposing income tax on the wealthy until the 1910s. Since its introduction, the tax rate has varied wildly.
Source: Thomas Piketty, Paris School of Economics
When tax cuts are given to the wealthy, lawmakers often justify the cut by claiming it will spur economic growth. The Tax Foundation, a nonpartisan, conservative-leaning think tank, argued in its analysis of Trump’s 2016 campaign proposal that lowering the top income tax rate would lead to increased job opportunities.
This core tenet of supply-side economics guided Reagan and Bush during consideration of their proposed tax cuts. Still, it's unclear whether cutting the income tax on the wealthy boosts economic growth.
Take, for example, the Reagan administration’s full embrace of the theory, which coincided with economic growth in the mid-1980s. Many supply-siders use this example to advocate for cutting tax rates further.
On the other hand, Bush’s administration proposed and Congress enacted a set of supply-side-focused tax cuts in 2001 and 2003 that some blamed for the Great Recession.
The Congressional Research Service published a paper in 2012 that found no correlation between top tax rates and economic growth. Congressional Republicans protested the findings, and the service briefly withdrew the paper.
Republicans argued that the CRS paper had methodological errors, namely that it didn't account for the long-term benefits of tax rate cuts. The paper looked only at effects on growth within the first year of the cuts.
POLITICO looked at each time the country changed the top income tax rate and the following five years of GDP per capita growth rate. The results are similar to the CRS findings: changing the top income tax rate does not have a predictable effect on economic growth.
The unpredictable effect of changing income tax rates on the wealthy
Since World War II, the tax rate has changed significantly six times. The effects on the economy were different each time: the tax rate on high income earners has no relationship to economic growth.
How past income tax rate cuts on the wealthy affected the economy
The GOP has historically claimed reducing the top tax rate will create economic growth, but that hasn’t always happened.
www.politico.com
I know of no one that's not gainfully employed I have people asking me if I know any one looking for a job. Before trump I had 4 people a day ask for a job.
willing to destroy the country to benefit the party!
Republicans Keep Admitting Everything They Said About Obama Was a Lie
White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney, appearing on Fox News Sunday, repeated the official administration line that Democrats had to choose between legislation and investigation. Chris Wallace reminded Mulvaney that he had supported a Republican Congress that had engaged in continuous investigations of the White House, reopening probes to chase conspiracy theories even after they had been conclusively debunked.
This prompted Mulvaney to make an interesting confession. The Republican Congress never wanted to pass laws in the first place:
When somebody says “I’ll be the first to admit,” it’s usually an idiom, suggesting they are not trying to hide a fact that is widely known and frequently confessed. But in this case the sentence construction makes more sense if read literally. Mulvaney may actually be the first person to admit that congressional Republicans did not want to give Obama any legislative successes at all.
Mitch McConnell boasted that he pressured Republicans to refuse to compromise with any of the Obama administration’s priorities in his first two years (“We worked very hard to keep our fingerprints off of these proposals. Because we thought — correctly, I think — that the only way the American people would know that a great debate was going on was if the measures were not bipartisan.”).
Yet after Republicans won control of Congress on the shoulders of a tea party wave of debt hysteria in 2010, a conventional wisdom took hold that President Obama needed to get Republicans to make a deal. Most outside observers conceded that the congressional GOP might not be the easiest negotiating counterparty. Still, Obama was widely held to bear a share of the blame for his inability to get Republicans to make a deal. He didn’t play enough golf with them, or ******* enough with them, or “lead.” The idea that Obama could and should ******* Republicans to make deals with him was pure conventional wisdom for years on end.
As a high-profile link between the Obama-era Republican Congress and the Trump administration, Mulvaney has retrospectively clarified a lot of points people refused to understand at the time. Mulvaney casually confessed last week that nobody cares about the deficit. Mulvaney of course spent the Obama era claiming to care about the deficit a lot — so much, indeed, that he was willing to shut down the government or even default on the national debt in order to reduce it. The debt hysteria was manufactured to cover a different agenda. Republicans wanted to ******* Obama to reduce popular domestic spending programs so they could cut taxes for the affluent. But since neither cutting retirement programs nor reducing taxes for the rich are popular goals, Republicans framed their policy as “deficit reduction,” and the debt-scold community and most of the mainstream news media took this framing at face value.
That’s one reason why Obama couldn’t make a deficit deal with Republicans: They didn’t care about the deficit. Also, as Mulvaney now casually concedes, they didn’t want to give him any accomplishments at all, so even if Obama offered a deal they could live with, they would have opposed it rather than allow him to claim legislative success.
The Republican Party of the last quarter century regularly toggles between methodological extremes. When they gain the presidency, they dismiss congressional oversight and fiscal responsibility alike as totally unnecessary. When they relinquish it, they pursue both to fanatical extremes. Either they are blowing up the deficit and covering up wild crime sprees, or they are demanding senseless austerity and conducting permanent, redundant investigations of phantasmal Fox News–generated nonevents.
Typically, they roll out a new cast of characters to justify the stance of the moment and allow the old ones to fade into the sunset. The Clinton-era inquisitors of Capitol Hill were gone from the scene when the Bush administration was escaping oversight and rolling up debt. The Bushies faded into the background when Obama-era Republicans waxed hysterical about debt and scandal. Now a new reversal is upon us. Unfortunately for Trump’s party, Mulvaney is still with us to answer for the past.
Republicans Keep Admitting Everything They Said About Obama Was a Lie
White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney confesses the GOP Congress refused to give Obama any successes.
Coronavirus: A Great Opportunity for Dems to Attack Trump ...
Liberty Nation
Liberty Nation - Conservative News | Libertarian News | Commentary
www.libertynation.com
6 days ago · As Coronavirus continues to make its way around the world, sickening and killing thousands, the U.S. government’s response to the crisis has become riddled with dissension between President Trump and the Democrats. Trump requested $2.5 billion in funding from Congress to deal with the outbreak.
And it sill isn't anywhere close to the level of plan delusional left wing claptrap propaganda you keep posting over and over again.
And we all know you still haven't read any of it
Last edited:
willing to destroy the country to benefit the party!
Republicans Keep Admitting Everything They Said About Obama Was a Lie
White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney, appearing on Fox News Sunday, repeated the official administration line that Democrats had to choose between legislation and investigation. Chris Wallace reminded Mulvaney that he had supported a Republican Congress that had engaged in continuous investigations of the White House, reopening probes to chase conspiracy theories even after they had been conclusively debunked.
This prompted Mulvaney to make an interesting confession. The Republican Congress never wanted to pass laws in the first place:
When somebody says “I’ll be the first to admit,” it’s usually an idiom, suggesting they are not trying to hide a fact that is widely known and frequently confessed. But in this case the sentence construction makes more sense if read literally. Mulvaney may actually be the first person to admit that congressional Republicans did not want to give Obama any legislative successes at all.
Mitch McConnell boasted that he pressured Republicans to refuse to compromise with any of the Obama administration’s priorities in his first two years (“We worked very hard to keep our fingerprints off of these proposals. Because we thought — correctly, I think — that the only way the American people would know that a great debate was going on was if the measures were not bipartisan.”).
Yet after Republicans won control of Congress on the shoulders of a tea party wave of debt hysteria in 2010, a conventional wisdom took hold that President Obama needed to get Republicans to make a deal. Most outside observers conceded that the congressional GOP might not be the easiest negotiating counterparty. Still, Obama was widely held to bear a share of the blame for his inability to get Republicans to make a deal. He didn’t play enough golf with them, or ******* enough with them, or “lead.” The idea that Obama could and should ******* Republicans to make deals with him was pure conventional wisdom for years on end.
As a high-profile link between the Obama-era Republican Congress and the Trump administration, Mulvaney has retrospectively clarified a lot of points people refused to understand at the time. Mulvaney casually confessed last week that nobody cares about the deficit. Mulvaney of course spent the Obama era claiming to care about the deficit a lot — so much, indeed, that he was willing to shut down the government or even default on the national debt in order to reduce it. The debt hysteria was manufactured to cover a different agenda. Republicans wanted to ******* Obama to reduce popular domestic spending programs so they could cut taxes for the affluent. But since neither cutting retirement programs nor reducing taxes for the rich are popular goals, Republicans framed their policy as “deficit reduction,” and the debt-scold community and most of the mainstream news media took this framing at face value.
That’s one reason why Obama couldn’t make a deficit deal with Republicans: They didn’t care about the deficit. Also, as Mulvaney now casually concedes, they didn’t want to give him any accomplishments at all, so even if Obama offered a deal they could live with, they would have opposed it rather than allow him to claim legislative success.
The Republican Party of the last quarter century regularly toggles between methodological extremes. When they gain the presidency, they dismiss congressional oversight and fiscal responsibility alike as totally unnecessary. When they relinquish it, they pursue both to fanatical extremes. Either they are blowing up the deficit and covering up wild crime sprees, or they are demanding senseless austerity and conducting permanent, redundant investigations of phantasmal Fox News–generated nonevents.
Typically, they roll out a new cast of characters to justify the stance of the moment and allow the old ones to fade into the sunset. The Clinton-era inquisitors of Capitol Hill were gone from the scene when the Bush administration was escaping oversight and rolling up debt. The Bushies faded into the background when Obama-era Republicans waxed hysterical about debt and scandal. Now a new reversal is upon us. Unfortunately for Trump’s party, Mulvaney is still with us to answer for the past.
Republicans Keep Admitting Everything They Said About Obama Was a Lie
White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney confesses the GOP Congress refused to give Obama any successes.
I am only seeing one Republican quoted. So which other Republicans make up the "Republicans are saying"?
I can't believe Republicans didn't support Obama's desire to over regulate and bring socialism to American. Who would've thought.
It's not like they said "Obama will not accept the out come of the election" and then not accept the outcome of the election. And then spend 4 years and billion dollars trying to stage an impeachment coup. And they did have Obama on Solyndra and Fast 'n Furious gun running.
Obama Saved Us From a Great Depression
There is no mystery about Barack Obama's greatest presidential achievement: He stopped the Great Recession from becoming the second Great Depression. True, he had plenty of help, including from his predecessor, George W. Bush, and from the top officials at the Treasury and Federal Reserve. But if Obama had made one wrong step, what was a crushing economic slump could have become something much worse.
In the coming weeks, we'll be swamped with analyses of Obama's legacy. His foreign policy will be critiqued, as it is already. Once in the White House, Donald Trump may trash some of Obama's favorite policies: the Affordable Care Act, the program on climate change, the Dodd-Frank law on financial regulation. All this may wrongly foster the notion that Obama accomplished almost nothing.
Put this down to partisanship, selective memories or both. It is Obama's unfortunate fate that the high-water mark of his presidency occurred in the first months, when the world flirted with financial calamity. The prospect of another Great Depression - a long period of worsening economic decline - was not far-fetched.
In its just-released annual report, the White House's Council of Economic Advisers (CEA) explains why. Recall the dreadful numbers.
In the first quarter of 2009, as Obama was moving into the White House, monthly job losses averaged 772,000. The ultimate decline in employment was 8.7 million jobs, or 6.3%. Housing prices and stock values were collapsing. From their peak in February 2007 to their low point, housing prices dropped 26%. Millions of homeowners were "underwater" - their houses were worth less than the mortgages on them. Stock prices fell roughly by half from August 2007 to March 2009.
There was no guarantee that the economy's downward spiral wouldn't continue, as frightened businesses and consumers curbed spending, and, in the process, increased unemployment. The CEA presents a series of charts comparing the 2008-09 slump with the Great Depression. In every instance, the 2008-09 downturn was as bad as - or worse than - the first year of the Great Depression: employment loss, drop in global trade and change in households' net worth.
The starkest of these was the fall in households' net worth (people's assets, such as homes and stock, minus their debts, such as mortgages and credit card balances). It dropped by $13 trillion, about a fifth, from its high point in 2007 to its trough in 2009. This decline, the CEA notes, "was far larger than the reduction (adjusted for inflation) ... at the onset of the Great Depression."
What separates then from now is that, after 18 months or so, spending turned up in 2009 while it continued declining in the 1930s. This difference reflected, at least in part, the aggressive policies adopted to blunt the downturn. The Fed cut short-term interest rates to zero and provided other avenues of cheap credit; the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP), enacted in the final months of the Bush administration, poured money into major banks to reassure the public of their solvency.
Still, Obama's role was crucial. Against opposition, he decided to rescue General Motors and Chrysler. Throwing them onto the tender mercies of the market would have been a huge blow to the industrial Midwest and to national psychology. He also championed a sizable budget "stimulus." Advertised originally as $787 billion, it was actually $2.6 trillion over four years when the initial program was combined with later proposals and so-called "automatic stabilizers" are included, says the CEA.
More generally, Obama projected reason and calm when much of the nation was fearful and frazzled. Of course, he didn't single-handedly restore confidence; but he made a big contribution. So did the underlying flexibility and resilience of the U.S. economy.
In its report, the CEA contends that the recovery from the Great Recession is mostly complete. This seems plausible. Since the low point, employment is up 15.6 million jobs. Rising home and stock prices have boosted Inflation-adjusted household net worth by 16%. Gross domestic product - the economy - is nearly 12% higher than before the financial crisis.
Many Americans still seem disappointed. They feel insecure and shortchanged. The financial crisis and Great Recession left deep scars that haven't yet been fully healed by a recovery that often seemed halting and unreliable. They also don't give Obama much credit because they disagree with him on other issues or disapprove of the general contentiousness of his presidency. Any semblance of bipartisanship broke down.
As a result, his impact is underestimated. Suppose we had had a second Great Depression with, say, peak unemployment of 15%. Almost all our problems - from poverty to political polarization - would have worsened. Obama's influence must be considered in this context. When historians do, they may be more impressed
www.realclearmarkets.com
There is no mystery about Barack Obama's greatest presidential achievement: He stopped the Great Recession from becoming the second Great Depression. True, he had plenty of help, including from his predecessor, George W. Bush, and from the top officials at the Treasury and Federal Reserve. But if Obama had made one wrong step, what was a crushing economic slump could have become something much worse.
In the coming weeks, we'll be swamped with analyses of Obama's legacy. His foreign policy will be critiqued, as it is already. Once in the White House, Donald Trump may trash some of Obama's favorite policies: the Affordable Care Act, the program on climate change, the Dodd-Frank law on financial regulation. All this may wrongly foster the notion that Obama accomplished almost nothing.
Put this down to partisanship, selective memories or both. It is Obama's unfortunate fate that the high-water mark of his presidency occurred in the first months, when the world flirted with financial calamity. The prospect of another Great Depression - a long period of worsening economic decline - was not far-fetched.
In its just-released annual report, the White House's Council of Economic Advisers (CEA) explains why. Recall the dreadful numbers.
In the first quarter of 2009, as Obama was moving into the White House, monthly job losses averaged 772,000. The ultimate decline in employment was 8.7 million jobs, or 6.3%. Housing prices and stock values were collapsing. From their peak in February 2007 to their low point, housing prices dropped 26%. Millions of homeowners were "underwater" - their houses were worth less than the mortgages on them. Stock prices fell roughly by half from August 2007 to March 2009.
There was no guarantee that the economy's downward spiral wouldn't continue, as frightened businesses and consumers curbed spending, and, in the process, increased unemployment. The CEA presents a series of charts comparing the 2008-09 slump with the Great Depression. In every instance, the 2008-09 downturn was as bad as - or worse than - the first year of the Great Depression: employment loss, drop in global trade and change in households' net worth.
The starkest of these was the fall in households' net worth (people's assets, such as homes and stock, minus their debts, such as mortgages and credit card balances). It dropped by $13 trillion, about a fifth, from its high point in 2007 to its trough in 2009. This decline, the CEA notes, "was far larger than the reduction (adjusted for inflation) ... at the onset of the Great Depression."
What separates then from now is that, after 18 months or so, spending turned up in 2009 while it continued declining in the 1930s. This difference reflected, at least in part, the aggressive policies adopted to blunt the downturn. The Fed cut short-term interest rates to zero and provided other avenues of cheap credit; the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP), enacted in the final months of the Bush administration, poured money into major banks to reassure the public of their solvency.
Still, Obama's role was crucial. Against opposition, he decided to rescue General Motors and Chrysler. Throwing them onto the tender mercies of the market would have been a huge blow to the industrial Midwest and to national psychology. He also championed a sizable budget "stimulus." Advertised originally as $787 billion, it was actually $2.6 trillion over four years when the initial program was combined with later proposals and so-called "automatic stabilizers" are included, says the CEA.
More generally, Obama projected reason and calm when much of the nation was fearful and frazzled. Of course, he didn't single-handedly restore confidence; but he made a big contribution. So did the underlying flexibility and resilience of the U.S. economy.
In its report, the CEA contends that the recovery from the Great Recession is mostly complete. This seems plausible. Since the low point, employment is up 15.6 million jobs. Rising home and stock prices have boosted Inflation-adjusted household net worth by 16%. Gross domestic product - the economy - is nearly 12% higher than before the financial crisis.
Many Americans still seem disappointed. They feel insecure and shortchanged. The financial crisis and Great Recession left deep scars that haven't yet been fully healed by a recovery that often seemed halting and unreliable. They also don't give Obama much credit because they disagree with him on other issues or disapprove of the general contentiousness of his presidency. Any semblance of bipartisanship broke down.
As a result, his impact is underestimated. Suppose we had had a second Great Depression with, say, peak unemployment of 15%. Almost all our problems - from poverty to political polarization - would have worsened. Obama's influence must be considered in this context. When historians do, they may be more impressed
Obama Saved Us From a Great Depression | RealClearMarkets
There is no mystery about Barack Obama's greatest presidential achievement: He stopped the Great Recession from becoming the second Great Depression. True, he had plenty of help, including from his...
How Barack Obama rescued the US economy
Given the starting point, and congressional opposition, recovery has been remarkable
How should we assess the economic success or failure of Barack Obama’s presidency? This is a difficult question to answer. After all, the incumbent of the White House cannot determine the performance of the huge and complex US economy. Indeed, policy initiatives usually have a modest impact. But the story of Mr Obama’s presidency is a little different from the usual, since it began amid the worst financial crisis since the 1930s. If we consider the disaster he inherited and the determination of the Republicans in Congress to ensure he would fail, his record is clearly successful. This does not mean it is perfect. Nor does it mean the US confronts few economic challenges. Neither statement would be close to correct. Yet it does mean he has laid a strong foundation.The latest Economic Report of the President analyses the Obama record. It is also the brief for the defence. But Mr Obama’s Council of Economic Advisers does first-rate analysis. This report is no exception to that rule.
The starting point must be with Mr Obama’s inheritance: the economy was in free fall in early 2009. As the report notes, perfectly correctly: “It is easy to forget how close the US economy came to an outright depression during the crisis. Indeed, by a number of macroeconomic measures . . . the first year of the Great Recession . . . saw larger declines than at the outset of the Great Depression in 1929-30.” Responsibility for the successful recovery does not rest with this administration alone: the administration of George W Bush was responsible for the immediate response (though bearing some responsibility for the severity of the crisis); the US Federal Reserve acted effectively; and Congress passed important legislation. Yet, shockingly, most congressional Republicans opposed all significant monetary, financial and fiscal actions taken to deal with the crisis.
The Obama administration implemented a number of important fiscal measures, notably the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. It also provided strong moral support for the Fed (including the reappointment of Ben Bernanke, who had been President Bush’s nominee). The administration also restored the financial sector faster than expected and carried out a highly successful rescue of the car industry.
Meanwhile, Republicans decried the fiscal stimulus, complaining about the huge fiscal deficits caused by the crisis. Yet it was as absurd to complain about deficits then as it is to slash taxes now, when the economy seems close to full employment. Some Republicans claimed Fed policies risked hyperinflation. Most opposed the re-regulation of the financial sector and savaged the bailout of the car industry. Yet President-elect Donald Trump might not be in a position to bully automakers today if they had not been rescued back then. In all, given the starting point, the performance of the economy has been remarkable. The unemployment rate has consistently fallen faster than expected. US business has also added 15.6m jobs since private-sector job growth turned positive in 2010. Real wage growth has been faster in the present cycle than in any since the early 1970s. In the third quarter of 2016, the economy was 11.5 per cent bigger than at its pre-crisis peak and real gross domestic product per head was 4 per cent above the pre-crisis peak, while that of the eurozone was still below it. Household net worth has also reached 50 per cent above its 2008 level.
Yet Mr Obama was interested in more than economic recovery. He tried to move the US closer to the universal health insurance taken for granted in other high-income countries. The Affordable Care Act (“Obamacare”) has added an estimated 20m adults and 3m children to the insurance rolls. Healthcare costs have also grown exceptionally slowly since the law was enacted, relative to past US performance. These are all genuine achievements. Yet some problems could not be cured.
First, US economic outcomes have become exceptionally unequal, despite a modestly progressive shift in the impact of fiscal policy under Mr Obama. Doing something effective about this was beyond his powers, both because it is difficult and because his opponents had no interest in helping. Second, the participation in the labour ******* of prime-aged males (25 to 54) has been on a 70-year downward trend, while that of prime-aged females has flatlined for three decades. This is a poor performance by the standards of most high-income economies. It is impossible to argue credibly that this is the result of particularly generous US welfare benefits or particularly high minimum wages. The failure is deeper.
Third, growth of labour productivity has slowed sharply, though it was still higher than in other members of the Group of Seven leading high-income countries between 2005 and 2015. The reasons for this slowdown are a puzzle. Possibilities include the post-crisis weakening of business investment and a broader post-crisis loss of ******* spirits. It is also likely that the underlying rate of innovation is slowing. Some argue that this is the result of excessive regulation. The next administration is set to test that hypothesis to destruction. Finally, the US has a key role to play in tackling the threat of unmitigated climate change. In the absence of any consensus on this question in the US, Mr Obama relied on executive actions, which will now presumably be reversed. In all, the administration rescued the US economy and bequeathed a sound foundation for its successor to build on. But it made a big mistake: it did not go all out to punish those whose malfeasance and irresponsibility blew up the financial system and economy.
This sense of injustice is one reason why the US has elected the wrecking crew that is about to take office. Mr Obama could not channel rage. Mr Trump, alas, can.
How Barack Obama rescued the US economy | Financial Times
https://www.ft.com/content/b5b764cc-d657-11e6-944b-e7eb37a6aa8e
How Barack Obama rescued the US economy ... the first year of the Great Recession . . . saw larger declines than at the outset of the Great Depression in 1929-30.” ... on this question in the US …
Eight Years Later: The Economy and President Obama's Legacy
https://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/president-obama...
Jan 06, 2017 · Eight Years Later: The Economy and President Obama's Legacy. ... When he took office in January of 2009, the United States was in the worst recession …
Given the starting point, and congressional opposition, recovery has been remarkable
How should we assess the economic success or failure of Barack Obama’s presidency? This is a difficult question to answer. After all, the incumbent of the White House cannot determine the performance of the huge and complex US economy. Indeed, policy initiatives usually have a modest impact. But the story of Mr Obama’s presidency is a little different from the usual, since it began amid the worst financial crisis since the 1930s. If we consider the disaster he inherited and the determination of the Republicans in Congress to ensure he would fail, his record is clearly successful. This does not mean it is perfect. Nor does it mean the US confronts few economic challenges. Neither statement would be close to correct. Yet it does mean he has laid a strong foundation.The latest Economic Report of the President analyses the Obama record. It is also the brief for the defence. But Mr Obama’s Council of Economic Advisers does first-rate analysis. This report is no exception to that rule.
The starting point must be with Mr Obama’s inheritance: the economy was in free fall in early 2009. As the report notes, perfectly correctly: “It is easy to forget how close the US economy came to an outright depression during the crisis. Indeed, by a number of macroeconomic measures . . . the first year of the Great Recession . . . saw larger declines than at the outset of the Great Depression in 1929-30.” Responsibility for the successful recovery does not rest with this administration alone: the administration of George W Bush was responsible for the immediate response (though bearing some responsibility for the severity of the crisis); the US Federal Reserve acted effectively; and Congress passed important legislation. Yet, shockingly, most congressional Republicans opposed all significant monetary, financial and fiscal actions taken to deal with the crisis.
The Obama administration implemented a number of important fiscal measures, notably the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. It also provided strong moral support for the Fed (including the reappointment of Ben Bernanke, who had been President Bush’s nominee). The administration also restored the financial sector faster than expected and carried out a highly successful rescue of the car industry.
Meanwhile, Republicans decried the fiscal stimulus, complaining about the huge fiscal deficits caused by the crisis. Yet it was as absurd to complain about deficits then as it is to slash taxes now, when the economy seems close to full employment. Some Republicans claimed Fed policies risked hyperinflation. Most opposed the re-regulation of the financial sector and savaged the bailout of the car industry. Yet President-elect Donald Trump might not be in a position to bully automakers today if they had not been rescued back then. In all, given the starting point, the performance of the economy has been remarkable. The unemployment rate has consistently fallen faster than expected. US business has also added 15.6m jobs since private-sector job growth turned positive in 2010. Real wage growth has been faster in the present cycle than in any since the early 1970s. In the third quarter of 2016, the economy was 11.5 per cent bigger than at its pre-crisis peak and real gross domestic product per head was 4 per cent above the pre-crisis peak, while that of the eurozone was still below it. Household net worth has also reached 50 per cent above its 2008 level.
Yet Mr Obama was interested in more than economic recovery. He tried to move the US closer to the universal health insurance taken for granted in other high-income countries. The Affordable Care Act (“Obamacare”) has added an estimated 20m adults and 3m children to the insurance rolls. Healthcare costs have also grown exceptionally slowly since the law was enacted, relative to past US performance. These are all genuine achievements. Yet some problems could not be cured.
First, US economic outcomes have become exceptionally unequal, despite a modestly progressive shift in the impact of fiscal policy under Mr Obama. Doing something effective about this was beyond his powers, both because it is difficult and because his opponents had no interest in helping. Second, the participation in the labour ******* of prime-aged males (25 to 54) has been on a 70-year downward trend, while that of prime-aged females has flatlined for three decades. This is a poor performance by the standards of most high-income economies. It is impossible to argue credibly that this is the result of particularly generous US welfare benefits or particularly high minimum wages. The failure is deeper.
Third, growth of labour productivity has slowed sharply, though it was still higher than in other members of the Group of Seven leading high-income countries between 2005 and 2015. The reasons for this slowdown are a puzzle. Possibilities include the post-crisis weakening of business investment and a broader post-crisis loss of ******* spirits. It is also likely that the underlying rate of innovation is slowing. Some argue that this is the result of excessive regulation. The next administration is set to test that hypothesis to destruction. Finally, the US has a key role to play in tackling the threat of unmitigated climate change. In the absence of any consensus on this question in the US, Mr Obama relied on executive actions, which will now presumably be reversed. In all, the administration rescued the US economy and bequeathed a sound foundation for its successor to build on. But it made a big mistake: it did not go all out to punish those whose malfeasance and irresponsibility blew up the financial system and economy.
This sense of injustice is one reason why the US has elected the wrecking crew that is about to take office. Mr Obama could not channel rage. Mr Trump, alas, can.
How Barack Obama rescued the US economy | Financial Times
https://www.ft.com/content/b5b764cc-d657-11e6-944b-e7eb37a6aa8e
How Barack Obama rescued the US economy ... the first year of the Great Recession . . . saw larger declines than at the outset of the Great Depression in 1929-30.” ... on this question in the US …
Eight Years Later: The Economy and President Obama's Legacy
https://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/president-obama...
Jan 06, 2017 · Eight Years Later: The Economy and President Obama's Legacy. ... When he took office in January of 2009, the United States was in the worst recession …
Well, it looks like we might have found someone as bad at math as ole MacNLies....
thehill.com
I'm surprised Brian Williams didn't wind up claiming he invented math....
Brian Williams, NYT’s Gay criticized over math flub: ‘Saddest clip in TV history’
MSNBC’s Brian Williams was mocked over math on social media after quoting a tweet claiming that former 2020 Democratic presidential candidate Mike Bloomberg “could have given each Ameri…
thehill.com
I'm surprised Brian Williams didn't wind up claiming he invented math....
You Wish, what a joke. Talk about delusional. The plan was in place before Obama took office. The owners told him what the plan was, aka the bankers. And once in office he stepped aside and let the banks walk all over him and get away with almost bankrupting this economy. And the Democrat Congress bent over and followed suit. He was unqualified and sat to the side in a room of sharks who owned him and the Dems, and a good number of Republicans. They still do.
Wasn't Obama the one who said the crappy economy was the "New Normal." Funny how when Barak was in office all the Dems repeated that mantra and talked down and legislated as if our economy was dead. Then around 2017, after that bs regs were removed and the economy starts to boom you leftist whined about the deregulation, NOW Obama and you leftist tried to take credit.
Oh and don't forget all the fools you quote were saying under Trump the economy would implode. What a Joke.
What was it Obama said, "No you didn't build that." Well no Obama didn't end the, in reality, depression created by the Governement.
Last edited:
- Status
