In response to:

The Diaper We Know as Obamanomics

stephen602 Wrote: Feb 05, 2013 9:28 AM
We know Obama is a big spending liberal. We know what he will do if left to his own devices. Where the heck is the opposition party ? I thought all spending originates in the House, and Republicans supposedly control that ...or do they ? How did a spineless, feckless wimp like Boehner get elected as Speaker ? He must go if we are to stem the red (ink, that is) !!
twit123 Wrote: Feb 05, 2013 10:05 AM
Obama has not submitted any budget to Congress for 4 years. Appropriation must come from Congress with a budget they received from the WH. There was none.

So, Obama does not care. All he does is print paper money that secretly devalues our currency. With that we have rising gas prices, groceries, all commodities that we buy. People are so complacent and still love Obama because majority 51% are being feed by us from Obama's hands. Majority of the people that Obama gathered don't earn what they spent. The working and tax paying citizens are the victims.
Jeff2422 Wrote: Feb 05, 2013 1:21 PM
Well, Toqueville spoke over a 125 years ago of the weakness of democracies. Eventually, a majority who perceive themselves as have-nots vote themselves what the alleged haves have. The Constittution was originally set to avoid a pure democracy and create a republic. But, as another writer has pointed-out, the 17th Amendment turned the Senate over to a popular vote. Jacksonian Democracy, further amendments and the Supreme Court have assumed that we were intended to be a pure democracy. Not so, but here it is and this is what you get. It all comes down to getting your people to the polls. After that, they don't have to listen. Obama is example No. 1 when he says that his NLRB appointees stay though the DC Court says they go.
mgoode880 Wrote: Feb 05, 2013 3:01 PM
And the Rebs are weak, what a shame.
Jeff2422 Wrote: Feb 05, 2013 9:46 AM
One would think that all spending starts in the House since the Constitution says that, but that is not today's realty. The House has been abdicating its perogatives for a very long time. When they create these agencies, like the 100 or so under Obama care, they include spending increases for 5 to 10 years. In other words, the budgets are placed on auto-pilot. It takes a bill, passed in both houses, to "cut" these automatic spending increases.This is what they are talking about in DC when they say "cuts". It is this "baseline budgeting" idea which assumes an absolute baseline of spending and builds from there. As you can see, there is no incentive for an agency to be more efficient. Thus, spencing spirals out of control. (cont)
Jeff2422 Wrote: Feb 05, 2013 9:51 AM
The only time spending has been reigned-in was during and after the 1995 shut down when 85 House Repubs, nearly all new to DC, refused to supprt a CR (continuing resolution) to fund the government. These CR's are all that is left to the House, it is all or nothing thing. If you remember in 1995, the Dems and Clinton made a lot of political hay out of the shut-down. However, it slowed the growth of spending enough to allow the economy to catch-up and showed people that we can live without the massive spending. This resulted in the Graham-Rudman Bill which essentially required a balanced budget. This law expired in 2002 and Bush (and House Repubs) was OK with that because he had a war to fight and a new Homeland Sec Agency to fund.

Yes, it’s that time of year again.

It’s time to hold our nose and check the diaper that we have all come to know as Obamanomics.
While rightly this review should have been completed closer to the first of the year, there were too many events in the offing that were likely to impact the economy to take a stab at the broad outlines of an economic outlook nearer New Year’s Eve.

But now that congress and the president have agreed to get the tax increase off the table that they didn’t dare pass while campaigning, clear the children...

Related Tags: Obamanomics