| richardhutnik said: The first year of Obama in office was a mess as far as the economy went. You had numerous stimulus and other things thrown in, trying to prevent a great depression level, if not worse, meltdown. Money was thrown at things, including bailouts. You can't use the first year of Obama's administration as anything. A lot of that was baked in also from Bush's budget. But you need to look at now here, Obama did support the budget cut plan without tax increases for ANYONE. Obama also slashed taxes for the middle class by reducing FICA. There was agreement here. But, Obama doesn't support budget cuts alone. And that is the reality of things. Does this mean that shrinking the government for its own sake is Obama or the Democrat's approach? No. But there is reality of trying to contain costs, which is hitting hard now. The debate now is over whether or not the marginal tax rate on the upper end should go back to the pre-Bush era or not. Regarding being fillibuster-proof congress (supermajority), it was less than 80 days Obama had: http://sandiegofreepress.org/2012/09/the-myth-of-the-filibuster-proof-democratic-senate/ |
Even if it wasn't a full two years, what did they achieve? The Senate has not passed a budget since April 2009. There were not any filibusters on them because Republicans wanted the democrats on record as supporting the president's budget. (which had no cuts! not one of obama's budgets proposed cuts to anything except NASA) Not sure how you can say Obama supported budget cuts when each year his suggested budget was larger than the previous year's suggested (and unpassed) budget.
They spent a year focusing on Obamacare while telling us it would create jobs.
Hey, anyone remember the stimulus unemployment promise? Remember the chart we were treated with? Let's see what really happened.
