Trumka Tells Obama to Stop ‘Nibbling Around the Edge’ on Jobs

He means “union jobs”, only. Hence the infrastructure bank….guess who that will benefit? This guy is a “thug”!

Oh please unions will be paying record dollars this election to democrats. Who does this pudgy mobster think he’s fooling.

Trumka knows nothing about creating jobs. He only knows how to make money off from the people who are employed by job creators.

Unless we have a federally mandated stimulous or a continuation of reimbursements to the states to retain teachers and other state and local unionized employees, this guy’s membership numbers are going to plummet over the next few years regardless of president.

wheresmymoney…the other important component is that if you are non union and you participate you cant stop your employees from organizing and making your shop union. when you become union you automatically owe your share of the unions pension deficit. can you sing back in the U.S.S,R,

In Central and South America, right wing dictators targeted union leaders with death squads – because they didn’t want anybody organizing workers or the poor. They wanted to keep control.
In the United States, the power brokers just get their dupes to mouth slogans and badmouth unions without any discussion of strengths and weaknesses. They don’t want real discussion, nor real information out there.
A decent living wage and a decent retirement is now too much to expect in the glorious United States. Oh, and I forgot, it’s all the fault of the unions.

In Central and South America, right wing dictators targeted union leaders with death squads – because they didn’t want anybody organizing workers or the poor. They wanted to keep control.
In the United States, the power brokers just get their dupes to mouth slogans and badmouth unions without any discussion of strengths and weaknesses. They don’t want real discussion, nor real information out there.
=======
You are right to demand a real discussion, and smart to start it by comparing people who criticize unions with South American dictators’ death squads.

“We do not have a short term deficit crisis. It does not exist” Um, yeah. Suuure…

“A decent living wage and a decent retirement is now too much to expect in the glorious United States.”
Posted by: Jan | Aug 25, 2011 7:21:01 PM
You’re perfectly free to start a business and create jobs that pay “decent living wages” and provide a “decent retirement.” Who’s stopping you?

Posted by: Jan | Aug 25, 2011 7:35:32 PM
It’s very easy to demand that others make sacrifices to subsidize your lifestyle when you yourself don’t even work.
Please explain to me how raising my taxes gives me incentive to hire more employees for my businesses when my margins are already being squeezed by Obama’s Depression.

Oh oh Mr President..the boss is calling!

Talking to yourself again?
Posted by: Chuck | Aug 25, 2011 7:57:33 PM
No, I was talking to you, oh dense one.
Hence the blind attacks on unions. The fat cats don’t like unions.
The top 1% of the country owns more of the country’s wealth than all of the wealth of the bottom 90% combined.

Not a union hater here (my dad is part of a public employee union), but I think I can sum up several of the gripes that most people have about unions here. 1 – while at one point in our country’s history, they were needed, they have often overstepped their bounds to hurt companies, raise labor costs, driving jobs overseas. 2 – They often demand salaries that are not in line with true market values. While this sounds all nice for the employees, what you are really doing is raising the cost of doing business for companies beyond what the real market forces are dictating. Again, this drives up labor costs, and drives jobs overseas. 3 – Unions act as if they are more important than non-union folks, describing themselves as “working families.” I got news for you – we’re all working families! 4 – It drives laziness when you know you have a set income, and all you have to do to move ahead is simply keep your job, rather than actually doing something to earn a promotion.

1 – while at one point in our country’s history, they were needed, they have often overstepped their bounds to hurt companies, raise labor costs, driving jobs overseas. 2 – They often demand salaries that are not in line with true market values
_____________________
Market value – hahahaha! Market value is whatever the bossmen can get away with. Look at third world countries.
p.s. – we’re never going to be able to compete with wages of $2 a day, unless your great vision is to all of the United States reduced to the poverty levels of developing nations.
The Republican right is nothing if not hypocritical.
They whine on behalf of those earning over $250,000 a year – that they aren’t rich and shouldn’t have to pay a small increase in taxes. Too hard on them.
Yet they condemn a union employee earning $60,000 – 90,000 a year on piece work and say that person is destroying the country’s economy. They ask too much.
Phony.

Jan, you are clearly schooled in union thug tactics (another reason people hate unions), stating your BS about $2/hour, etc. etc. Not working LOL Fail! Nobody is saying we should go there. Funny, I make a helluva lot more than that on my own merit with a non-union private corporation based on my education, hard work, actual accomplishments and experience. Funny, I’m not worried about making $2/hour, why are you??

Yet they condemn a union employee earning $60,000 – 90,000 a year on piece work and say that person is destroying the country’s economy. They ask too much.
=======
I don’t condemn union employees. I am happy for people to make as much money as their employer can pay them.
My problems with the unions are
-Every penny they have and every penny they spend has been siphoned off both the employer (the job creator) and the union worker. They have no way of making their own money.
-Too often they create an us vs. them mentality with the employer. Many union people I know feel they owe their job to the union, rather than the company that pays them. That isn’t healthy.
-Too often, as we saw with the UAW, the union encourages the workers to demand more than the company can afford to pay and stay in business.
Unions can do good. But they aren’t all good. They are self-serving entities that stay in business by convincing workers (and politicians) that they need them.

Chuck you’ve already proved yourself a liar many times over.

Tell us again Chuck how Obama ‘quadrupled’ Bush’s spending . ..
Bush’s submitted budget for 2009 was $3.1 trillion.
Obama’s submitted budget for 2010 was $3.55 trillion.
Tell us again how Obama ‘quadrupled’ Bush’s spending.

Tell us again how Obama ‘quadrupled’ Bush’s spending.
Posted by: Jan | Aug 25, 2011 8:35:15 PM
Obama, July 3, 2008:
The problem is, is that the way Bush has done it over the last eight years is to take out a credit card from the Bank of China in the name of our children, driving up our national debt from $5 trillion for the first 42 presidents — #43 added $4 trillion by his lonesome — so that we now have over $9 trillion of debt that we are going to have to pay back, $30,000 for every man, woman and child. That’s irresponsible. It’s unpatriotic.”
Los Angeles Times reported that the national debt has risen by $4.2 trillion since President Barack Obama took office.
Bush = 8 years, 4 trillion debt (2 years of which the Dem House and Senate spent like drunken sailors)
Obama = 2 1/2 years, 4.2 trillion (Dems had supermajority for 2 years)

Chance of Recession as High as 80%: Merrill Lynch Study
The probability of a double-dip recession is now above 80%, BofA Merrill Lynch modeling shows. One strategist put that number at 100% and said the recession might have already begun.
Thanks Barry Your plans worked perfectly

Posted by: wheresmymoney | Aug 25, 2011 9:28:06 PM
Actually if take from Bush’s inauguration to Obama’s inauguration, Bush ran up the national debt $4.9 trillion. In essence, he DOUBLED the national debt.
Obama has increased the national debt by $4 trillion; in other words, he’s increased it by less than 50%.
It’s important to remember that increase in national debt included a LOT of INTEREST on the debt left by the previous administration. This has been a matter of almost half a trillion dollars.
Additionally, Obama was handed an economy in free-fall collapse with government revenues hideously depleted and demands on government resources extreme.
Imagine where we might have been had Bush not handed over a massive public debt and a country in economic collapse.

Didn’t Mr. Obama focus on jobs many times over.? Remember even before he was sworn in, he was all over TV, hiring the “best and brightest” economic team the world has ever seen – Geithner, Summers, Barnes, Romer, Higginbottom. Mr. Clinton warns us that Mr. Obama is “a roll of a dice”.

It’s also worth noting that Bush’s submitted budget for 2009 was $3.1 trillion. Most people stick Obama with the 2009 figures, but the bulk of that is not Obama’s.
The federal fiscal year runs from October to October.
=======
Yes, which is why the bulk of the 2009 figures are not Bush’s. He was only President for 3.5 months of fiscal 2009.
Not only that, but Congress never did complete a budget for FY 2009 while Bush was president. He had said he would veto it because it was too big, so they waited until Obama got into office and then passed a continuing resolution.

Not only was Bush’s spending request for $3.1 trillion, the financial cost of the Iraq War and the War in Afghanistan are not part of the defense budget included in this budget; they were additional appropriations.

Canada also went through one of its worst recessions during the same time that US was going through. It has since recovered all the jobs lost.
Posted by: young_voter | Aug 25, 2011 10:14:28 PM
Canada is a resource rich country. As stated earlier, resource rich countries have done better than other countries during this economic collapse.
Canada also instituted stimulus programs and deficit funding.

Yes, but the Budget Resolution that passed for FY 2009 was $3.4 trillion, and it was passed in February 2009.
Posted by: MayBee | Aug 25, 2011 10:25:29 PM
Not according to CNN . . .
April 03, 2009
“The Senate passed a $3.53 trillion version of the federal budget for fiscal year 2010 late Thursday night in a party-line vote, ending several weeks of acrimonious partisan debate.
“The package was approved on a 55-43 vote. GOP Sens. Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, and Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins of Maine — who voted in favor of the president’s stimulus bill last month — voted against what is essentially the blueprint of Obama’s economic policies going forward.
“Earlier in the evening, the House of Representatives passed its own version of the spending plan –$3.55 trillion budget, capping off a long day of debate and voting marked by the defeat of several alternative spending plans.”
So, the budget was passed AFTER the stimulus plan was put in place.

Sandy- your quote is about FY 2010

So, the budget was passed AFTER the stimulus plan was put in place.
========
Yes, the stimulus was a separate spending bill. It was not included in either the 2009 or 2010 budgets.

Under the Bush, the federal budget was increased by 104 percent.
During his second term in office, Bush increased discretionary spending by 48.6 percent.
Republicans in Congress then who faithfully supported gov’t expansion, gov’t spending, gov’t overreach and debt under Bush:John Boehner (in Congress since 1990),Eric Cantor (in Congress since 2001);Mitch McConnell (in Congress since 1984),John Kyl (in Congress since 1987)among others
43% (~ $6.1 trillion) of the debt currently on the books originated under Bush. In January 2009, under CBO’s projections assuming a continuation of then-current policies, the debt held by the public was projected to increase by more than $2.3 trillion and gross debt was projected to increase $2.7 trillion Unfortunately, on top of that grim news, the economic downturn was significantly worse than CBO projected in January 2009. CBO’s updated economic outlook projects that the 2011 deficit will be lower than the last two years’ deficits, but still near record highs. It forecasts a slow but steady economic recovery over the next six years BUT clarifies that the country’s medium-term fiscal imbalances are manageable ONLY IF lawmakers don’t screw things up. Also, it doesn’t account for the recent swings in financial markets or anything that has occurred since mid-July.
The economy needs further short-term stimulus combined with credible longer-term fiscal restraint–but neither thing is in the current GOP’s DNA.
And the public is on to them. See the latest AP/GFk poll. Public approval of Congress had dropped to a new low of 12 percent. The poll also found that only 29 percent view Republican House Speaker John Boehner favorably, unfavorable views of the tea party have jumped 10 percentage points since November and more Americans blame Bush and Republicans in Congress for our economic stress than Obama or democrats, respectively.

The Dec 2009 Military supplemental was designed to cover expenses through the end of the 2010 FY.

Actually if take from Bush’s inauguration to Obama’s inauguration, Bush ran up the national debt $4.9 trillion. In essence, he DOUBLED the national debt.
Obama has increased the national debt by $4 trillion; in other words, he’s increased it by less than 50%.
Good grief. 4 TRILLION in 8 years or 4 trillion in 2 years. HOW HARD IS THAT TO UNDERSTAND?? You want to rationalize by the percentage? Obama is on track to SHATTER all Presidents combined.

Canada is a resource rich country.
Posted by: Sandy | Aug 25, 2011 10:25:09 PM
So is the USA. Unfortunately, between the President and his EPA, we now have so many regulations we can’t use those resources.

The Budget in 2010 contained funding for Iraq and Afghanistan, but it was in addition to the funding he had signed in the Dec 2009 supplemental.
Posted by: MayBee | Aug 25, 2011 11:29:12 PM
No it was clearly not a funding of the wars outside of the annual defense budget.
20 Dec 2009
“WASHINGTON – The U.S. Congress on Dec. 19 sent President Barack Obama a massive ANNUAL military spending bill that funds current operations in Afghanistan and pays for the troop withdrawal from Iraq.
“In a rare weekend vote, the Senate approved the $636.3-billion package, which cleared the House of Representatives 395-34 on Dec. 16, by an 88-10 margin.
“The bill includes $101.1 billion for operations and maintenance and military personnel requirements in Iraq and Afghanistan and to carry out the planned withdrawal of all U.S. combat forces from Iraq by August 2010.”

A concise way of describing it is that Obama added $1.5 trillion in new debt, that is debt which we wouldn’t have acquired otherwise. Bush added over $5 trillion in new debt.

There were two supplemental bills signed by Obama for war funding, not 3.
Posted by: MayBee | Aug 26, 2011 12:14:12 AM
Yes, BUT the first supplemental (in June, 2009) was for the 2009 budget, a budget prepared by Bush which did not including the war spending. In other words, Obama had to pass a supplemental bill because the previous administration had not included the war costs in the 2009 budget.
He at this point dedicated himself to including the costs of war within future budgets – which he has done.
The only exception came out of the decision to implement a surge in Afghanistan which required extraordinary funding of $33 billion.
_________________________
The point being, Obama’s 2010 budget was not much larger that Bush’s 2009 budget submission AND IT INCLUDED THE COSTS OF THE WARS which Bush’s did not.
___________________________
(Regarding the $33 billion for the surge, “there is nothing mischievous about using supplementals to fund an unforeseen change in military strategy. By the time Obama announced the 30,000-troop surge in December 2009, he had already submitted the 2010 budget.”)

Posted by: MayBee | Aug 26, 2011 12:56:05 AM
Yes, but the point is the difference between what Bush proposed for his budget in 2009, is only slightly less than what Obama presented in 2010 AND Obama’s included the bulk of the war spending.
Taxes and revenues have nothing to do with the spending side of the budget.
What spending cuts were proposed and not delivered. How much and where?

it included offsetting spending cuts that never came about.
Posted by: MayBee | Aug 26, 2011 12:56:05 AM
What spending cuts? How much and from where?

Where exactly is the wild spending spree? Bush did TARP. Obama did ARRA. TARP is a non-recurring cost. ARRA is a non-recurring cost.
The ‘wild spending spree’ is phony right wing propaganda.
Posted by: Sandy | Aug 26, 2011 1:20:12 AM
And the big joke is we’re now finding out Perry used ARRA funds to balance his budget and create tens of thousands of goverment jobs – the ‘Texas miracle’ – while at the same time criticizing ARRA.
The hypocrisy is so thick.

However you look at the budgets- with or without the wars- actual spending has increased. The deficit has increased.
Posted by: MayBee | Aug 26, 2011 1:32:44 AM
“Actual spending” has increased surprisingly little over the Bush administration and Bush’s proposed budgets.
What has happened is that revenues took a tremendous hit – as a direct result of the economic collapse. That is one of the main sources of the deficits.
The interest on the debt Bush left is close to a half trillion dollars all by itself! And that has little to do with President Obama.
________________________________
it included offsetting spending cuts that never came about.
Posted by: MayBee | Aug 26, 2011 12:56:05 AM
What spending cuts? How much and from where?

it included offsetting spending cuts that never came about.
=======
In Medicare and Medicaid.

In Medicare and Medicaid.
Posted by: MayBee | Aug 26, 2011 1:41:35 AM
The questions were . . . what spending cuts? How much and from where?

Posted by: MayBee | Aug 26, 2011 1:58:51 AM
Of course a president can do exactly what you describe.
As I just pointed out, under President Obama the yearly spending has begun to decline.
I think what we can both agree on is that the Republican right’s attempt to portray the current president as having been on a ‘spending spree’ is a completely hypocritical bunch of nonsense.
Obama’s spending increases are neglible when looking at the 2009 Republican Bush budget – and Bush’s TARP funding.
And Obama has been dealing with the collapsed economy he was handed with its demands on government resources and its destruction to government revenues. And Obama is dealing with – at the same time- the massive debt he was handed.
The surprising thing is how many of the gullible public (and the ridiculous right wing) buy the Republican propaganda.

I’m still curious about how much money Obama had proposed cutting from Medicare and Medicaid.
In his 2010 budget . ..

I think what we can both agree on is that the Republican right’s attempt to portray the current president as having been on a ‘spending spree’ is a completely hypocritical bunch of nonsense.
=======
Well then I’m sure he’ll be able to get spending back down to manageable levels, in line with revenue projections, and the deficit will close substantially.
Easy peasy.

Nothing to lose in going public with a “keep your man in line” soundbite for the masses, eh Richard?

Richard Trumka today urged President Obama to put forth “bold solutions” to the nation’s unemployment crisis in his post-Labor Day jobs speech, warning of political peril.—Getting rid of usless unions would be a great first step to creating jobs.

Somehow I think Richard Trumka’s speech is more about Richard Trumka than Obama.

Richards Trumka’s salary is $264,827.00 + benifits of $18,513.00 for a total of $283,340.00/ year. Not bad for not producing anything. He is also on Obama’s economic advisory council so I find this article rather strange and why does he not mention what the bold solutions are??? Could they be anti business??? Suprise!!!

ANEMIC: Economic Growth Slows to Crawl, GDP Increase at 1%…
The Obama recession is here, look for Blame to be placed on the Hurricane.. NBC this morning just “floated” that idea

Trumka thinks he is President, he is at the WH more than Obama anyway. Unions have their place but they have abused the system now. We all have a right to work, and not just for unions so they can spend our money paying off and bribing corrupt politicians in the Democratic party.

“I think what we can both agree on is that the Republican right’s attempt to portray the current president as having been on a ‘spending spree’ is a completely hypocritical bunch of nonsense.”
Posted by: Sandy | Aug 26, 2011 2:09:45 AM
You’re making a fool of yourself, tierra.
Bush’s budget increased the debt by an average of $607 billion per year, while President Obama has increased the debt an average of $1.723 trillion for the last three years. That’s 1.1 TRILLION MORE PER YEAR than Bush.
Obama is increasing our debt at a rate of about $5 BILLION PER DAY. As a deficit spender, Obama makes Bush look like a piker.

The unions are looking for stimulus 2 from the President. They our the people who
profited the most from the first one. I believe everyone should keep on eye on how things go in Chicago with unions
because Mayor Rahm is taking them on
and laying them off for budget restraint.
Unions will always support the Democrats
after all these years and rhetoric they have no other choice.

Obama added in total about $1.5 trillion in new spending. Bush added over $5 trillion.
======
Skip, just for the sake of clarity- over what time period are we talking about here?

Numbers don’t lie only radical left wing extremist do..

Non-Union Employer Shot, Suspect Etched ‘Scab’ On Vehicle
ABC goes silent on story

One would think that we as Americans have a right to work.
Posted by: builder | Aug 26, 2011 11:06:16 AM
——————————————
Not in Obamas America, as he prevents Boeing from opening a major plant in SC
And he seems thrilled that GE is Out Sourcing even more jobs as GE just signed a contract with China to build jet engines to compete with America..more rewards for Jeff Immelt

I have zero sympathy for scabs. The union movement needs to get tougher, and workers need more than unions today – we need more direct action and new types of organizations that aren’t hampered by the fascist labor laws in the US>

I have zero sympathy for scabs. The union movement needs to get tougher, and workers need more than unions today – we need more direct action
Posted by: Flash Override | Aug 26, 2011 11:14:26 AM
“WTOL-TV reports that John King, the owner of King Electrical Services was shot in the arm last week when he surprised a man trying to slash the tires on the truck at his home. The word “scab” was also scrawled on the side.”
Looks like they are “getting tougher and taking action.” I suppose this is acceptable to you because the end justifies the means?

When an employer kills a worker through willfull neglect of workplace safety laws, it costs them an average of $5,000 in fines. 4,000 workers are killed every year on the job, and 50,000 contract occupational diseases.
Your princess sparkle pony crybaby King gets no sympathy from me.

I’ve seen it, and it is terribly flawed
+++++++++++++++++++++
It only has to be accurate enough to debunk the claim that Obama increased spending by multiple amounts over Bush, a groundless assertion which we often see repeated here, and it does.

Skip- are you comparing 8 years of Bush to 2.5 years of Obama?

Notice how an employee asserts his right not to be murdered by his employer, and the bosses’ lacky accuses him of stealing something that isn’t his.

The union boils that went on strike against Verizon, soon changed their tune when they saw another 50,000 people that would work for the same amount and benefits that the union boils were already receiving… Of course the union boils had to cut wiring and peoples access to 911 first though
Unions= Boils on Americas neck

believe the chart includes projections till 2017. Obama would have to add even more new spending to increase it above the $1.5 trillion level.
=======
After 2.5 years, Bush’s projections would not have included TARP, the full costs of the wars, the 2008 stimulus, or the Medicare drug benefit.
So that comparison is pretty meaningless.

Even though it was entirely under Obama’s control to stop spending on the wars, eliminate the Bush tax cuts, and cut the Medicare drug benefit
+++++++++++++++
He couldn’t just do that. But this is how it works every time. It’s another way of making Obama responsible for Bush’s spending increases.

without organized labor and federal barriers to entry you could have your own job getting paid for the good work you do. the harder faster and more efficient you are the more you make.instead you find yourself caught in a world of mediocracy and stagnation. if thats what you want out of life then join a union but us non union folks HAVE A RIGHT TO WORK WITHOUT THE THREAT OF UNIONS.
instead we discourage people from doing it on their own so they can be slaves of the unions and the democrats. grow a pair and be your own man or women or maybe both.you cant imagine the feeling of controling some of your own destiny and being your own boss.
the only people who benefit from unions these days is management.

Notice how an employee asserts his right not to be murdered by his employer, and the bosses’ lacky accuses him of stealing something that isn’t his.
Posted by: Flash Override | Aug 26, 2011 12:15:53 PM
I guess we know now why your name begins with Flash (as in mob).
May the police show up at your door. You are justifying shootings and flash mobs. Chances are you are a participant.

DOJ goes after Gibson Guitars and confiscates approved wood; but still will not prosecute the New Black Panther Party for obvious federal election law violations. What gives?

DOJ goes after Gibson Guitars and confiscates approved wood;
=====
Wow. Armed agents executed a search warrant based on DOJ’s interpretation of an Indian law, but without the support or consent of the Indian government.
Let me guess….Gibson Guitars is not a union shop.

So apparently the Democrats are expected to take the responsibility for the cost of the wars but will get no credit for the savings by ending them.
=====
On that chart, the Democrats (or at least Obama) are not expected to take the responsibility for the cost of the war, and the savings are reflected.
In real life, the Democrats are of course partially responsible for the costs of the war, and would be partially responsible for the savings that comes from winding them down. But it isn’t deficit “reduction” unless that spending was actually going to take place and was budgeted for.
Whatever credit you get or want, you can’t actually cut the deficit by cutting spending that wasn’t in the budget in the first place.

the Democrats (or at least Obama) are not expected to take the responsibility for the cost of the war, and the savings are reflected
+++++++++++++++++++++
Where are savings reflected? You can spread responsibility for the various costs around, but you still haven’t come up with anywhere near enough changes in that chart to justify the often repeated allegation that Obama increased spending many times over Bush. It’s just not there.

Where are savings reflected?
========
On the top right, above the line that says “savings”, over the heading “Obama”.
Also, the savings are deducted from the total costs to get Obama’s 1.44 trillion figure.

Bush’s budget submission for 2009 was for $3.1 trillion and didn’t include the costs of the two wars.
Obama’s budget submission for 2010 was for $3.5 trillion and DID include the cost of the two wars (other than the extra cost of the ‘surge’ in Afgahnistand – $33 billion).
This is the ‘wild spending spree’ the Republican right pretends Obama has been on.
The Republican right are hypocrites and hogwash.
Posted by: Dana | Aug 26, 2011 2:11:33 PM
Even worse they won’t take responsibility or it. Cowards as well.

Obama barely increase spending over Bush’s 2009 submitted budget of $3.1 trillion – which didn’t include the two wars.
======
Well, as I said yesterday. If that is all the spending Obama has done, the deficit should be very manageable indeed.

dana wrote:”You might also remember the interest alone on the debt Bush left amounts to a little less than a half a trillion dollars a year! ”
.
Any worry about the interest on the debt that oBama is going to leave a Republican president in Jan 2013????

Posted by: Dana | Aug 26, 2011 3:25:47 PM
If Bush’s deficit spending caused a “massive economic collapse” that resulted in a “severe impact on revenues, resources and deficits”, then how has Obama’s continued deficit spending improved our fiscal situation?

“Oh yes, during their 12 years with a majority in the Congress those Republicans built such a ‘strong’ economy that just having Democrats walk through the doors of Congress destroyed the economy. Those scary Democrats!”
Posted by: Dana | Aug 26, 2011 3:38:54 PM
If Bush’s deficit spending caused a “massive economic collapse” that resulted in a “severe impact on revenues, resources and deficits”, then how did the record deficit spending by Democrats since 2007 improve our fiscal situation?

“Then why were all the Republicans swearing up and down that the economy was strong right up until the collapse?”
Posted by: Skip | Aug 26, 2011 3:41:56 PM
This is a lie. Records show that President Bush publicly called for Fannie/Freddie reform 17 times before Congress acted. He warned multple times of possible systemic failure as a result of issues with the GSEs. Democrats, who provided oversight of the GSEs, ignored him.
Nancy Pelosi was Speaker of the House and Harry Reid was Senate Majority Leader at that time. Did either one sound a warning of an impending collapse? Let’s see the quotes.

Posted by: Skip | Aug 26, 2011 3:44:59 PM
Name a country that has ever successfully resolved a national debt crisis by dramatically increasing its debt.

Posted by: Dana | Aug 26, 2011 4:03:33 PM
Bush warned Congress multiple times in 2008 of possible systemic failure because of issues with the GSEs.

“Reforming the GSE’s wasn’t going to stop the collapse, most of the really risky mortgages were written in the private sector. It was the large investment banks which started collapsing.”
Posted by: Skip | Aug 26, 2011 4:06:49 PM
Fannie and Freddie bought trillions of dollars worth of mortgages, a substantial portion of them based on poor credit, then resold many of them to financial institutions who thought they were safe because the federal government was behind them.
In 2005, the Senate Banking Committee, then chaired by Republican Richard Shelby, tried to rein in Fannie and Freddie to prevent them from acquiring bad mortgages. It actually gave a new regulator for Fannie and Freddie the kinds of powers that a bank regulator had.
All the Republicans voted for it. All the Democrats, including Senator Chris Dodd, voted against it, and that was after Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan had issued a stark warning to senators that Fannie and Freddie were playing with fire. Greenspan said without stronger regulations, “We increase the possibility of insolvency and crisis. Without restrictions on the size of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, we put at risk our ability to preserve safe and sound financial markets in the United States.”
Democrats resisted regulatory efforts. Bill Clinton agreed with this assessment.

We’ve heard this lame attempt to whitewash Republican style lax government oversight and deregulation many many times but to their credit a majority of Americans aren’t buying it, and rightly so.

Posted by: Dana | Aug 26, 2011 4:21:48 PM
You can’t just look at the raw numbers, genius. The analysis has to also account for the US population growth over those 11 years, which is close to 30 million people.

“As such,everything he posts is open to question.”
Posted by: Nephron | Aug 26, 2011 4:56:40 PM
He or she. Depends on the screen name.

In 2005, the Senate Banking Committee, then chaired by Republican Richard Shelby, tried to rein in Fannie and Freddie to prevent them from acquiring bad mortgages
++++++++++++++++++++++
Yes, according to wiki:
“Senate Bill S. 190, the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005, which was introduced in the Senate on January 26, 2005, sponsored by Senator Chuck Hagel and co-sponsored by Senators Elizabeth Dole and John Sununu. S. 190 was reported out of the Senate Banking Committee on July 28, 2005, but never voted on by the full Senate”
If it was so important why didn’t the Republicans ever even bring it to a vote?
Again, the Republicans never made any real effort to regulate the GSEs….that’s all part of the financial fairytale commonly retold by Republican apologists.

I don’t contest that…the Republicans did indeed talk about the GSEs very much. But they didn’t DO anything.

Gov Rick Perry – Texas; tort reform, balanced budget, trimmed size of state government, most new jobs and new business – and ALL OF THAT while dealing with illegal immigration. Compare THAT to what Obama has done. ARE YOU KIDDING? Oh yeah – he talks and looks a little like Bush and…OMG, he is a devoted Christian – OMG!

Jamie. If I accept your “fact” that Perry used stimulus money to balance the budget, how many other states did that and which ones? “Facts” are only meaningful when comparing them with other similar entities. Recenly the Sec of Education (under Obama)stated some facts about Texas education. Ie, he was trashing public education in Texas – in reality trashing Perry (as a threat to Obama). Turns out the guy’s “Facts” were are all wrong – AND PROVEN WRONG – pretty embarrassing for Obama.

What is budgeted is only half of the equation. The size of the economy and it’s ability to pay for the budget is the cause for the massive deficits. When unemployment is 5% it is much more difficult to increase the number of jobs than when it is 10% making comparisons of jobs created difficult.