Community | December 04, 2011 | 286 comments

Republicans better at balancing their budgets. Democrats always in a deficit

Image
congoboy
At a time when Washington continues to struggle to trim deficits that approach $1.5 trillion annually, Republican-led states, along with a few Democratic officials, continue to take the tough steps necessary to balance their state

budgets without tax increases. Here are a few of those states and the policies they have put in place to achieve these impressive results:

In Virginia, Gov. Robert F. McDonnell stood firm against tax increases last year and balanced his state’s two-year budget. Virginia taxpayers were rewarded when Mr. McDonnell recently announced a surplus of $311 million for the fiscal year just completed because of higher-than-expected tax receipts. It’s questionable whether the surplus would have materialized had he raised taxes last year, as many were demanding.

In Louisiana, Gov. Bobby Jindal and the first Republican legislative majority since Reconstruction passed a $25 billion budget that closed a $1.5 billion hole without tax increases. Mr. Jindal also realized his goal of not reducing funds for kindergarten through 12th grade and higher education, though those programs would absorb inflationary costs. The budget establishes Coordinated Care Networks, which outsource to the private sector the job of matching Medicaid beneficiaries with physicians and other providers. Most impressively, for the first time, the Louisiana budget contains no “member amendments” - otherwise known as earmarks - for projects in districts of powerful members.

Missouri’s Republican-dominated legislature adopted a 2012 state spending plan of $23.2 billion - $500 million lower than last year. This figure includes an additional $170 million of cuts implemented by Democratic Gov. Jay Nixon, making Missouri an example of bipartisan cooperation in spending restraint. Such cooperation is enhanced by Missouri’s requirement, similar to the law in many states, that the governor submit a balanced budget and that no deficit be carried over to the next fiscal year.

At least two states saw no such bipartisan cooperation, yet in both cases, small-government forces triumphed. In North Carolina, the first Republican legislative majority since the 19th century enacted a balanced-budget plan that closed a $2.5 billion deficit (12 percent of the total budget) and allowed “temporary” sales and income tax increases enacted by the Democratic majority in 2009 to expire. Led by House Speaker Thom Tillis and Senate President Pro Tempore Phil Berger, Republicans cut spending about 4 percent in total, which was possible because state spending had doubled in the previous decade. Education spending reductions were paired with programs to strengthen classrooms and teaching. Classroom sizes were reduced, and a performance pay model for teachers and other state employees was established. The cap on charter schools in the state was eliminated. The budget also included substantial Medicaid savings by consolidating programs and creating greater efficiencies.

Liberal Democratic Gov. Bev Perdue vetoed the budget, which was overridden promptly in both houses, with all Republicans and a few courageous Democrats voting to override.

In Minnesota, the Republican majority faced off against the very liberal Gov. Mark Dayton. Mr. Dayton, of course, proposed to increase taxes on the “wealthy.” The Legislature stood firm against any tax increases, resulting in a shutdown of state government for nearly three weeks. The final agreement closed a $5 billion deficit without raising taxes, and at least one tax, a 2 percent provider tax added to every patient bill in Minnesota, was phased out.

The Minnesota budget creates a Sunset Advisory Commission to review state agencies and programs, with the aim of enhancing program efficiencies. The budget also contains significant structural reforms that can substantially moderate state spending in the out years. On kindergarten-through-12th-grade education, state allocations to school districts will be based at least in part on student performance. Teacher evaluations were strengthened, and local school districts will not be penalized for not signing new agreements with their teachers unions at the beginning of the year.

In health care, the MinnesotaCare program was redesigned to provide vouchers to participants to purchase health insurance on the private market, a plan remarkably similar to Paul Ryan’s Medicare reform plan. The number of participants in the program is small, but over time, the results should tell us much about how enhanced consumer choice can improve health care affordability and quality.

The downsizing and rationalization of government continues at the state level because Republicans in charge - and some Democrats - are seizing the moment and putting forth real and constructive ideas on how government can be made less costly and more efficient. It’s a mindset more prevalent at the state level because constitutional and statutory provisions require legislators and governors at least to think about alternative strategies to balance their budgets. Compare that with a federal budget process and Washington culture that looks for every new and creative way to spend taxpayer dollars without any consideration of ultimate costs.

The irony is that it is Washington that is constantly telling the states how to handle their business affairs. Based on this year’s results, the states have much to teach Washington
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/jul/29/republican-states-balancing-thei...
  1. groups:
    Community,   News and Politics,   Politics,   Culture,   7 more
  2. tags:
    Federal Government,  States,  balanced budget amendment,  balanced budget,  1 more
  3.     
    |

286 comments // Republicans better at balancing their budgets. Democrats always in a deficit

  • lazloman
    • 0
      lazloman  

    • Hey, why don't you post statistics on education levels and average incomes. The flawed assumption in this post is that balanced budgets are indicative of good governance. If that were the case, the Southern states would lead in these categories. They don't. They are at the bottom. I'd rather have budget deficits and an affluent, educated population than balanced budgets and ignorant poor masses.

    • 6 months ago
  • timelord999
  • congoboy
  • timelord999
  • congoboy
    • 0
      congoboy  
    • timelord999:

      back at ya my misdirected friend. but i find it amusing that whenever one of your own is put in the spot light you run screaming like a frightened little school girl. this doesnt surprise me as its a typical tactic by the left

    • 6 months ago
  • OlBlue
  • congoboy
  • wolfess
  • OlBlue
  • faye59
  • congoboy
  • sugarmountian
  • freecrack
    • +5
      freecrack  

    • except for the fact that the last half century has seen an overwhelming dominance of republican leaders destroying our economy (nixon/reagan/bush/bush jr) as they drove down wages (union busting) and outsourced jobs, while the only time we had a balanced budget and a surplus no less was under clinton.

      funny part is these fiscal conservatives tried to shut down the gov during clinton.

    • 6 months ago
  • congoboy
  • freecrack
    • +5
      freecrack  
    • congoboy:

      corrupt or not isnt the issue.corrupt or legit, unions result in higher wages for the worker, wich is what the republicans in busting them prevented from happening.im sure it gives you great solice to believe in the altruism of the republicans busting unions as to stop them from corruptly mistreating their union members, but remember you like small gov.the kind of small gov that lets people choose how they want to live, as oppose to stepping on them saying you cant have this cuz its too corrupt right?

      btw if something isnt working the answer isnt to fix it or regulate it, just kill it huh?

      keep trying to spin the kiddie fuckers, its still the problem of the right.
      and will continue to be as long as you guys refuse to recognize it in order to fix it.just like any other problem

    • 6 months ago
  • congoboy
  • freecrack
    • +5
      freecrack  
    • congoboy:

      still stuck in the cause effect economic bullshit.the one in wich raising taxes prevents the job creators from creating the jobs, that they havent created regardless.
      it really doesnt matter how much we pay our employees, mexico and china will always offer lower pay.even if all employees across the board were paid min wage, china and mexico would still be cheaper.

      so what you are saying is you want our economy to flourish, but you dont want the workers to make too much money?

    • 6 months ago
  • congoboy
    • -4
      congoboy  
    • freecrack:

      not at all. it just seems to me that the left and their pro union sentiment are just as greedy as the right. too much money? isnt that what the left keeps whining about concerning the right? i am only here pointing out hypocrisy my friend. now have a blunt on me

    • 6 months ago
  • freecrack
  • congoboy
  • wolfess
    • +3
      wolfess  
    • freecrack:

      funny part is these fiscal conservatives tried to shut down the gov during clinton.
      Yeah, and that idiot gingrich/ginpoor got it done when he was leader of the house.

      We don't need no stinkin' gingrich!

    • 6 months ago
  • dcrog
    • -4
      dcrog  
    • wolfess:

      Yup, we need 4 more years of the same old tired Marxism administered by inept "democrats" and the Marxist in chief. That'll fix the nation, just like it has every other Marxist country.

    • 6 months ago
  • congoboy
  • freecrack
    • 0
      freecrack  
    • congoboy:

      wich all (sadly including drugs) are the very driving force of our capitalist economy.making that greed the basis for how our economy functions, vs the alternative, wich doesnt put money back into circulation.unless you are a yacht detailer, or specialize in butler services.

    • 6 months ago
  • freecrack
  • Judgian12365
  • Judgian12365
  • congoboy
    • 0
      congoboy  
    • Judgian12365:

      hey, i work hard. 1 full time and 2 part time jobs. it pays the bills but as most folks i could always use more. I earn my way and unlike the slovenly, dont expect others to redistribute or even things out to support me. I'm all for supporting the down on their luckers but it shoudlnt be a lifestyle choice as so many prefer

    • 6 months ago
  • dcrog
    • 0
      dcrog  
    • Judgian12365:

      You have to be kidding. Let me dumb myself down so that I can answer your question,,,,,,,,uh yep, I know who Marx was, and I know what Marxism is pal, that tried and failed crack pipe dream is still around! Those who favor the ever-increasing redistribution, and class warfare are Marxists, or Progressives, or Leftists, or Liberals, or Democrats. It makes no difference what you call a pile of feces, it still smells the same, and all the sugar coating and the rhetoric coming out of Washington does not change the name, or smell. Maybe you should do a little research on the creation of wealth and opportunities in nations dictated to by Socialists,,,oh yeah, there has never been wealth or opportunity for anyone but the power elite in those countries.

    • 6 months ago
  • dcrog
    • 0
      dcrog  
    • congoboy:

      Yes in deed, well put, no way to argue against your sentiment. That being said, I'm sure that some self-engrandised members of the fictional brain trust will try as they may to come up with something whimsical and confusing to say as usual! It's sad how some people take themselves and their confused views of reality so seriously.

    • 6 months ago
  • congoboy
    • 0
      congoboy  
    • dcrog:

      too serious leads to depression and unrealistic expectations of nanny state leaderhip. life is too short and should be enjoyed to its fullest. time to partay!

    • 6 months ago
  • dcrog
    • 0
      dcrog  
    • freecrack:

      Or, you work for the company that makes the boats, or the Leer jets, or you clean the houses, or you bartend or serve food at fancy establishments and make big tips, or you work as a dealer at a casino, or you work in a fancy hotel, or you are a construction worker, the list goes on an on and on and on. Has anyone ever been given a job by a poor or middle-class person? I highly doubt it.

    • 6 months ago
  • dcrog
  • freecrack
    • 0
      freecrack  
    • dcrog:

      same premise applies.one needs to have a surplus of money in order to employ others.
      as far as the middle class job creation goes, try the entire rest of every other industry aside from the luxury ones you mentioned.ya know like landscapers,house painters,cable installing,and so on and so on all the way to the supporting the dollar menu at mcdonalds.

      that is how an economy works, if it works at all.the cycle or money moving rather than resting in the hands of the top greedy fuckers.

      im sorry you dont get how the middle class are the difference between an economicaly viable society or an aristocracy eating the meek.

    • 6 months ago
  • dcrog
    • 0
      dcrog  
    • freecrack:

      Here, here! I fully get the point and that was my point; the money does move around, and we are all a part of that, no matter how much or how little we have. The pig that has the multi-million dollar boat bought it, lots of people were behind the building, transporting, selling, operating, maintaining it, and all of them were paid. They in turn, went out and spent some of that cash they were paid, and those who received that cash, went out and spent it. It's as obvious as nature dude.

    • 6 months ago
  • Judgian12365
  • Judgian12365
    • 0
      Judgian12365  
    • dcrog:

      "Maybe you should do a little research on the creation of wealth and opportunities in nations dictated to by Socialists...there has never been wealth or opportunity for anyone but the power elite in those countries."
      WRONG
      The most successful and prosperous nations on earth at this very moment are Unitary Democracies; what neoconservatives refer to as "socialist" countries.
      The level income disparity between the richest and poorest in America (a nation which, according to its founding documents, was INTENDED to be just such a social democracy as the most prosperous nations on earth now are) ranks significantly substantially above nations throughout the world that are fascist authoritarian dictatorships.
      While at the very same time, the Unitary Social Democracies of Northern and Western European world have what are among the LOWEST levels of income disparity between wealthy and not that have been seen thusfar in the known recorded history of developed civilized societies.
      So the readily apparently self-evident conclusion is that the poor in America would be better off the more like so called "socialist" countries we were.

      BTW: FYI: There are no "Marxist" countries in the world.
      Marxist nations don't exist anymore.
      The last even remotely Marxist nation on earth was the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, which collapsed two decades ago.
      ALSO: Marxism and Socialism are most definitively NOT one and the same thing.
      Marxism WAS communism, which failed two decades ago.
      What remains of formerly communist nations (North Korea and Cuba) have devolved into fascist Authoritarian Dictatorships, and are among the LEAST successful and prosperous countries the world has seen in known recorded history). Other formerly "communist" nations (China and Russia) are now major centers of prosperity in the modern capitalist global community.
      Others, (Southern and Eastern Europe) has attempted and failed at the Unitary sociopolitical model, and thus have levels of prosperity comparable to our own.
      Socialism is merely an ideal, an abstract concept, which in its incarnation in the modern world, is the sociopolitical ideology of the Unitary Social Democracy model, the nations of which (Northern and Western Europe) are among the most prosperous on earth.

    • 6 months ago
  • Judgian12365
    • 0
      Judgian12365  
    • dcrog:

      "Has anyone ever been given a job by a poor or middle-class person? I highly doubt it."
      I have.
      All of the jobs that i have had have been working for other working-class Americans.
      I've never once worked for anyone making more than $250,000 a year (or even $100,000/year for that matter) and have never worked for any trans-national, multinational, or global corporation or corporate conglomerate.
      Each and every single one of my friends and family, and everyone that i know personally can say the same.
      That's one hell of a lot of people proving you wrong.

    • 6 months ago
  • Judgian12365
    • 0
      Judgian12365  
    • congoboy:

      So do you then advocate for the elimination of all socialist institutions?
      ->What would you drive on if not on roads?
      ->While I recognize that learning and education is not big with religious reactionary neoconservative ideologues and zealots such as yourself, but still i have to ask where you would send your children if not to school?
      ->Do you really want for-hire private armies of mercenaries enforcing laws?
      (of course, our legal system is "socialist" as well, what with that whole Fourteenth Amendment "equal protection" racket that so many neoconservative teabaggers have fought against recently, so the laws would have to go too)
      ->Do you really want the fire department to charge you to put out the fire consuming your house? (the fees would be exorbitant without government tax dollars, which are "socialist" as well)
      ->Would you really have any desire to be charged admission to a hospital if you were dying? (it would cost even more if the ambulance had to come to you because you were too sick and/or injured to drive)
      ->Do you really never ever want to be able to retire? Would you really rather be forced to keep working until the day you die? (The retirement age was a product of collective bargaining by labor unions, which, as every teabagger who watches the faux propaganda channel well knows, are "socialist" "armies" bent on world domination, and must be destroyed completely without mercy; and social security and medicare, which the overwhelming vast majority of all american rely upon for their retirement, are well-know "socialist" "entitlements", and which neoconservatives have been attempting to eliminate for decades)
      ->Would you really want your young children going to work in dangerous and very probably toxic factories? (Child labor laws, too, were the work of "socialist" labor unions' collective bargaining; and life-saving public health and safety regulations, as well as the agencies that enforce them, are well known by any teabagger to be "socialist" "job-killers", and so it is that both of these things have been attacked relentlessly by the neoconservative teabagging party's candidates for the presidency in recent weeks.)
      ->In a related question: Would you really feel comfortable eating food manufactured and/or processed in such hazardous and toxic conditions; and drinking water from your faucet which you have to be very careful not to bring too close to any possible source of a spark, for fear of your drink spontaneously combusting into flames? (Again, clean air and water regulations on toxic poison and hazardous chemical industries are known to neoconservatives alike to be "socialist" "job killers").

    • 6 months ago
  • dcrog
  • Judgian12365
    • 0
      Judgian12365  
    • dcrog:

      These are not opinions.
      These are facts.
      I understand that in the Religious fundamentalist Neoconservative Reactionary Teabagging party, as well as on its multimedia mouthpiece, the Faux Propaganda Network, the two terms are used interchangeably.
      Unfortunately, here in the real world of reality, they do not, actually, really mean the same thing, the way they do on Faux "News".

    • 6 months ago
  • freecrack
    • 0
      freecrack  
    • dcrog:

      "no matter how much or how little we have"

      and that is where you are wrong.cuz ya cant spend that wich you do not have.even in this day of credit.
      not only that but the entire republican premise is that the having little money causes people to spend less, so having more money is what spending is predicated on.wich is true, as my broke ass wont be supporting the ipod or music industry in general as i dont have the surplus money required.but if i did have it i would buy a bunch of music, as i did when i had money to burn.

      the point is the fewer that have the money, the fewer who get the money, as it is the few who dictate what industries get served.like the boat manufacturers get money, while the ruby tuesdays wait staff are fucked cuz the people who buy the boats dont dine on such low quality food.

      the boat manufacturers may, but only to the degree the wealthy offer them work.as opposed to more people having disposable income allowing for industries to thrive regardless of what the few decide to do.

      just take it to its extreme.if one person only had all the money.then only those that the one person felt offered a value for that money would get some of it.then that small group would be shuffling money amongst them, as the rest dont have the capital to play that game.especialy when the one who has all the money in this scenerio has a system in place that has the money coming back to that one person as our wealthy do.the entire economy is subject to the will of the one person.as opposed to the many having smaller amounts distributed amongst them, allowing them to keep the money moving according to a variety of value systems rather than the one.thriving vs stifled

    • 6 months ago
  • dcrog
    • 0
      dcrog  
    • freecrack:

      Yes for sure, I see your point and I agree that there must be enough capital in the economy for everyone to have the opportunity to earn a comfortable wage. The economy is like nature, there becomes a tipping point when the mega-rich accumulate too much wealth, the pendulum will tend to go the other way eventually. The answer is not and never has been, to interfere with nature, or the economy, every time that has been attempted, things eventually get really screwed up. If we took all the money the rich had and gave it to all of us, no improvement in our lives would happen, but there sure would be a lot of damage to the economy.

    • 6 months ago
  • dcrog
  • dcrog
    • 0
      dcrog  
    • Judgian12365:

      "The production of too many useful things results in too many useless people."
      Karl Marx

      I know 'Marxist" is a dirty word to those who wish it were so here in America, but Obama and the "progressive" wing of the democrat party are Marxists, let's call a spade a spade and not mince words.

    • 6 months ago
  • Judgian12365
    • 0
      Judgian12365  
    • dcrog:

      "Obama and the "progressive" wing of the democrat party are Marxists"
      No, they're not.
      From that statement, i can conclude that you don't actually know what the word "marxist" means.

      So here it is:
      Marx·ism   [mahrk-siz-uhm] (ˈmɑːksɪzəm)
      noun
      (Government, Politics & Diplomacy) The doctrines developed from the system of economic and political thought, philosophy, theory and practice that holds that the state throughout history has been a device for the exploitation of the masses by a dominant class, dialectical materialism, a labor-based theory of wealth, the notion of economic determinism — that actions and human institutions are economically determined, that political and social structures are determined by the economic conditions of people, and that capitalism will ultimately be superseded by communism.

      Now, if could explain just how, exactly, Progressivism, and/or Liberalism for that matter, possibly fits the definition of Marxism in any way, shape, or form, please do not hesitate.

    • 6 months ago
  • Judgian12365
    • 0
      Judgian12365  
    • dcrog:

      "immaturity, instabililty and despondency...mindless name calling"
      What was it that i said that you consider to have been immature?
      I don't recall ever calling anyone a name.
      Please cite specific examples.

    • 6 months ago
  • mitekillem
  • congoboy
    • -5
      congoboy  
    • mitekillem:

      wow killer, you might want to put down the blunt and check it out again. the source is at the bottom of the story, i believe it was the washington times. unlike the left at least we dont make up our sources

    • 6 months ago
  • dcrog
  • congoboy
  • OlBlue
  • congoboy
  • lazloman
    • +5
      lazloman  

    • You'd be better off avoiding examples that use the South as a measure of success. They represent the poorest, least educated people in the country. They don't believe that they should invest in their people and the results show.

    • 6 months ago
  • congoboy
  • Nabe8
  • lazloman
  • Nabe8
  • Varex_Sythe
    • +2
      Varex_Sythe  
    • Nabe8:

      I just want to point out that I do not want to make anyone look foolish at this particular moment. I just want to satisfy my own curiosity.

      So, did you mean, "Your American," instead of, "You're American," as some kind of sarcastic jab which is meant to strengthen your claim, or did you make a very basic grammatical error while trying to insult someone else's intellectual ability?

    • 6 months ago
  • Nabe8
  • lazloman
  • congoboy
  • congoboy
  • Mark701
  • remanns
  • cmc101
  • congoboy
  • alexandrek
  • congoboy
  • alexandrek
  • congoboy
  • coraj
  • cmc101
  • congoboy
  • coraj
  • congoboy
  • ecoalex
    • +6
      ecoalex  

    • Another congoboy mis info piece.The truth is States.economies that increased spending ,did not perform drastic cuts ,had positive growth.States that did take the hatchet according to Conservative theology had negative growth.Clearly cuts caused declines in growth,growth is necessary to increase revenue,employment.

      In tough economic times cutting needed social programs,and taxes on the corporations,wealthy is a recipe for further decline.What the oligarchs/Conservatives want.

      Note the source,the Sung Yung Moon Washington Times.

    • 6 months ago
  • wolfess
    • +6
      wolfess  
    • ecoalex:

      Note the source,the Sung Yung Moon Washington Times.
      Seriously? The Washing Times belongs to the 'moonies' -- my Goddess, I thought we had washed our hands of their idiocy decades ago, absolutely frightening to think that kind of idiocy is still out there in OUR country!
      Pwr 2 the 99%! Dismember the 1% and their paid vermadon!

    • 6 months ago
  • lazloman
    • +2
      lazloman  
    • ecoalex:

      They hate the facts, so they have to come up with their own. I live in Illinois and have been watching the goings on in Wisconsin with much interest. Almost to the day Walkers budget passed. jobs have left the state. He cut taxes, axed education, etc. But he has still lost jobs. He promised 250k jobs by 2015, but lost another 9700 last month. That leads the nation. Here in Illinois, we haven't any of that stuff, but we've ADDED more jobs than Walker has lost.

    • 6 months ago
  • congoboy
  • congoboy
  • wolfess
    • +2
      wolfess  
    • congoboy:

      I don't believe in left, or right wing rags -- I search for information that can be verified, thus -- I believe in the truth. Sadly, it has been my experience that most 'rags' that cater to the right wing lie like a rug.

      Pwr 2 the 99%! Dismember the 1% and their paid vermadon!

    • 6 months ago
  • dcrog
    • -3
      dcrog  
    • wolfess:

      So I guess that means you don't read The New Republic or most of the snews papers, or watch NBC, CBS, ABC, CNN, MSNBC, PBS. I wonder where you get your intel from, not many sources left for you since you claim to be so objective and above it all. There's only 1 alternative to the obviously Left slanted snews media, FOX! :-*

    • 6 months ago
  • congoboy
  • Judgian12365
  • Brendan_Davis
    • +8
      Brendan_Davis  

    • My state: Oregon.
      Democrat run.
      It is unconstitutional to not have a balanced budget so we never have that problem.

      Also, in a recession you do not want to have a balanced budget. You balance your budget during periods of growth. This is basic economics.

      I am glad that Republican's learned that if you do not spend a lot then you can save. Congratulations, you passed elementary mathematics.

    • 6 months ago
  • remanns
  • congoboy
  • congoboy
  • cmc101
  • EmperorThan
    • +5
      EmperorThan  
    • congoboy:

      So what you're trying to say is Republicans leave economic wastelands for Democrats to have to cleanup during their terms?

      It sucks that Bush's policies created the Great Recession for Obama to have to inherit AFTER he took office.... something I notice most Republicans are trying to force the country to forget.

    • 6 months ago
  • mitekillem
    • +4
      mitekillem  
    • congoboy:

      This is a graph with no details, and no source page. If this is a graph on deficit, you're kind of shooting yourself in the foot. From Carter, Kennedy forward Republicans average larger deficits. Obama inherited 2 wars AND a shitty economy. Both of which an elected 2008 Republican president would have inherited. ...the latter all caused while G.W.Bush was in office. I believe it was something about "fighting terrorists" and "deregulating the financial" sector that had something to do with the COLLAPSE of the economy and the huge deficit. Call me crazy, but everything got shitty immediately afterwards.
      Notice how a democrat took Republican deficit of over 12 years and turned into 0.1%.
      This graph only shows that Democrats are better at having lower deficits on average.

      Good job on nullifying your own argument sh!t-for-brains.

    • 6 months ago
  • mitekillem
    • +3
      mitekillem  
    • cmc101:

      Good is spelled with two O's. G.O.O.D. If you're referring to God, the sentence doesn't make sense, and also God should be capitalized if you're referencing him by name.
      Also you don't GOT eyes, you HAVE eyes.
      This is also an example of a sentence fragment. Meaning it doesn't express a complete idea.
      The correct form should be, "It is a good thing that you have eyes."
      Please adhere to proper language structure beyond the 8th grade, if you wish for people to take you seriously.

      Ignorance supporting more ignorance is much of the problem in this country.
      Thank you for being a shinning example of that.

    • 6 months ago
  • congoboy
    • -5
      congoboy  
    • mitekillem:

      granted, obama inherited two wars one of which afghanistan, he made his platform on so essentially he made it his war, not to mention the other conflicts he's commited u.s. resources and military power to. but everyone on the left seems to give him a pass, and yes the economy was in a tail spin but obama also made poor choices due to his lack of experience that has driven the economy and the country deeper into the shit hole

    • 6 months ago
  • lazloman
  • congoboy
  • congoboy
    • -3
      congoboy  
    • EmperorThan:

      so you adopt more bailouts and create a socialist healthcare system we cant afford in response to your predecessor's mistakes and drive the country into twice as much debt? sounds like a sound fiscal policy to me

    • 6 months ago
  • Judgian12365
  • Judgian12365
  • Judgian12365
    • +2
      Judgian12365  
    • congoboy:

      "you adopt more bailouts...in response to your predecessor's mistakes"
      If you are referring to the Bank Bailouts. That WAS "President" George W. Bush.
      If you are referring to the auto bailouts, they worked, reviving the entire american automobile manufacturing industry as well as preserving millions of american jobs.

      "healthcare system we cant afford...drive the country into twice as much debt"
      But that's not true either, is it?

      CBO’s Preliminary Analysis of H.R. 2, the Repealing the Job-Killing Health Care Law Act
      “The House of Representatives is planning to consider a bill (H.R. 2) to repeal the major health care legislation enacted last March—that is, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) and the provisions of the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 that are related to health care. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has reviewed H.R. 2, the Repealing the Job-Killing Health Care Law Act, as introduced on January 5, 2011. That bill would repeal the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA, Public Law 111-148) and the provisions of the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 (P.L. 111-152) that are related to health care. Both of those laws were enacted in March 2010.
      Impact on the Federal Budget in the First Decade
      As a result of changes in direct spending and revenues, CBO expects that enacting H.R. 2 would probably increase federal budget deficits over the 2012–2019 period by a total of roughly $145 billion (on the basis of the original estimate), plus or minus the effects of technical and economic changes that CBO and JCT will include in the forthcoming estimate. Adding two more years (through 2021) brings the projected increase in deficits to something in the vicinity of $230 billion, plus or minus the effects of technical and economic changes.
      That figure consists of the following two components:
      • About $130 billion, representing the net reduction in deficits over the 2012–2019 period expected to result from the health care provisions of the enacted legislation (as estimated by CBO and JCT last March),3plus
      • About $15 billion, representing the reduction brought about by the Medicare and Medicaid Extenders Act of 2010 in the estimated cost of subsidies to be provided through the insurance exchanges through 2019.
      3 The $130 billion figure reflects about $124 billion in net savings estimated in March for the health care and revenue provisions over the 2010–2019 period but excludes about $7 billion in estimated net costs of the enacted legislation in 2010 and 2011—during which the proposed repeal would have no budgetary effect if it was enacted near the end of fiscal year 2011. The $130 billion in savings is the result of projected increases of about $520 billion in revenues and about $390 billion in outlays.”
      CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE
      Douglas W. Elmendorf, Director
      U.S. Congress
      Washington, DC 20515
      January 6, 2011
      This entry was posted on Thursday, January 6th, 2011 at 10:41 am and is filed under Health.
      http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/120xx/doc12040/01-06-PPACA_Repeal.pdf
      http://cboblog.cbo.gov/?p=1750

    • 6 months ago
123
1 - 100 of 286
more from Community:
from the community

top videos