Bolas 5 #251 September 12, 2009 Quote Quote Quote he also spent less than Reagan, on an 8-year basis he increased spending 42% as compared to Reagan's 57%, GWB's 56%. Primarily I would assert his spending cuts were miltary. When GWB was president The Cold War was ending... Actually it ended 4 1/2 months after GHWB took office. More importantly, GHWB wasn't so delluded, as was Reagan, to think, "The Commies are coming, the Commies are coming." We can find whatever reasoning we need, but GHWB substantially reduced the military and did as all a favor. He did the unthinkable for a Republican President, he: - Reduced teh military - Raised taxes Don't really care why, he did us a huge favor and was so, "un-Republican." And it cost him the presidency, as well as Perot splitting the R vote too. I meant GHWB... 3 things lost GHWB second term (in priority order) 1. Perot 2. "Read my Lips" 3. Rock the Vote The impact of a president isn't really felt until he is 4-8 years out of office. Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #252 September 12, 2009 QuoteI meant GHWB... Oh I understood what ya meant, bro. I wasn't being sarcastic or picky with that, I knew you were saying that since the Cold War was over, that justified GHWB to cut the military. At the same time, today's Republicans would typically not cut the military in any case and he did which helped the economic health of the US. I was also saying that the whole Cold War thing, past the Bay of Pigs, was a joke. Esp when Reagan thought the Commies were coming, it was totally unnecessary. In 1980 the USSR Communist econmic system was in trouble, that's what caused it to fail in 89. The Cold War was a way to do what the Great President Eisenhower told us not to do; expand the Military Industrial Complex. You have to create an enemy to create need, then appropriations are easy, unless you are.....unAmerican. Quote3 things lost GHWB second term (in priority order) 1. Perot 2. "Read my Lips" 3. Rock the Vote Agreed. If Perot hadn't run, a guy I voted for and if I didn't I would have voted Bush, GHWB would have won. I agree with your order, too. QuoteThe impact of a president isn't really felt until he is 4-8 years out of office. It really varies. I think that can be true, such as with Reagan, we didn't feel the ouch until the recession of 90-91. But with Clinton we felt the relief as he was in office and felt the ouch of GHWB right away as well and are still feeling it. I think that can be true, but it can also be felt at different times. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dsandreas 0 #253 September 13, 2009 Quote Your posts are ridiculously long and you continue to attribute things to me that I have never said. Not wasting anymore of my time...I will let you continue to debate yourself. In other words, you are asking for short, simple statements that are easily understood by the average ten year old. Sorry, this isn't Faux News. If you want to debate with grownups, your intellect and reading skills should be up to the task. If they aren't, perhaps you could find another way to spend your time... ______________________________________________ Actually...I can put up with the drivel and imagination this lemming has. What I don't like is his arguing against statements he attributes to me that I never said. I made a comment that Clinton reluctantly signed welfare reform and he responds regarding me "decrying Clinton." I said nothing negative about Clinton...only made the observation that he signed it after vetoing it twice. I think this hardly qualifies as decrying him. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rickjump1 0 #254 September 13, 2009 *** Preventing anyone from buying insurance with their own money for ideological reasons(as mnealtx and rushmc want to do) just transfers the burden onto the rest of us. I WANT everyone, including illegal aliens driving cars, to be insured at their own expense, so I don't have to pay additional premiums for uninsured motorists coverage. I WANT them to buy health insurance (at their own expense), as a pool of millions of unhealthy people is bad for all of us. If our dear leaders were serious, there would be no opportunity for anyone here illegally to be driving period. There would be no sanctuary cities, and nothing to stop local law enforcement from arresting anyone here illegally. If crimes were committed, justice would would be served before they were deported including those who received a death sentence [they get to go home DRT (dead right there)]. Sure, the public would be greatful if they had liability and health insurance, but anyone knowingly selling illegal aliens insurance should be subject to a fine and prision or both. There has to be a point where things are so uncomfortable, the illegals will head south voluntarily; kind of like President Eisenhower's "Operation Wetback".Do your part for global warming: ban beans and hold all popcorn farts. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rickjump1 0 #254 September 13, 2009 *** Preventing anyone from buying insurance with their own money for ideological reasons(as mnealtx and rushmc want to do) just transfers the burden onto the rest of us. I WANT everyone, including illegal aliens driving cars, to be insured at their own expense, so I don't have to pay additional premiums for uninsured motorists coverage. I WANT them to buy health insurance (at their own expense), as a pool of millions of unhealthy people is bad for all of us. If our dear leaders were serious, there would be no opportunity for anyone here illegally to be driving period. There would be no sanctuary cities, and nothing to stop local law enforcement from arresting anyone here illegally. If crimes were committed, justice would would be served before they were deported including those who received a death sentence [they get to go home DRT (dead right there)]. Sure, the public would be greatful if they had liability and health insurance, but anyone knowingly selling illegal aliens insurance should be subject to a fine and prision or both. There has to be a point where things are so uncomfortable, the illegals will head south voluntarily; kind of like President Eisenhower's "Operation Wetback".Do your part for global warming: ban beans and hold all popcorn farts. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dks13827 3 #255 September 13, 2009 Wilson's timing may be poor, but he was not incorrect. ( did you see the look on Piglosi's face though ? PRICELESS !!!) Yet Wilson has been villified to the max !!! The people sheep should understand something... when the President says 'we are going to get cheaper cleaner energy,, what he means is.. HE WISHES THAT WOULD HAPPEN.. but it wont. Also, IMO, at some point 'they' are going to try to STOP all these kids breaking their femurs and pelvises !!! trust me,, it is inevitable that they will attempt that !!. Inevitable !! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,027 #256 September 13, 2009 Quote Because the dem's are spending money at a rate that will bankrupt us and we are trying to find ways to slow it down. By eliminating illegals from helth care we save billions. You should read this. www.examiner.com/x-6572-NY-Obama-Administration-Examiner~y2009m9d12-The-hypocrisy-of-tea-party-conservatives... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,027 #257 September 13, 2009 QuoteQuoteIn order just to keep up with inflation and population growth from 2000 to 2008 the federal revenues needed to be $2.57T in 2008. So the shortfall in revenues in real terms was $50Billion. Thanks be to the GOP. ______________________________________________ Federal spending growth ALWAYS exceeds inflation and population growth. Who can honestly believe the deficit is related to not enough taxes....ridiculous. The deficit growth is due to TOO MUCH SPENDING. The bank bailout, auto bailouts, cash for clunkers, and the stimulus bill are four great recent examples. Pay attention - I was writing about about federal revenues, NOT spending. In real terms (constant $$) revenues decreased during GWB's presidency. They increased during Clinton's administration.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Lucky... 0 #258 September 13, 2009 QuoteQuote Because the dem's are spending money at a rate that will bankrupt us and we are trying to find ways to slow it down. By eliminating illegals from helth care we save billions. You should read this. www.examiner.com/x-6572-NY-Obama-Administration-Examiner~y2009m9d12-The-hypocrisy-of-tea-party-conservatives Isn't it just bizzare, the conservatives, so they're called (can't figure out why since they had the largest liberal giveaway of cash with Reagan, then GWB), are acting as though they are the ones who are fiscally stingy? And even if they justify their ill-engaged war in Iraq, that counts for about 18% of the 5T debt increase as Bush left office. But I think it's fair to look at the representations on this forum for the answer. Not saying they're bad guys, just that when people post data and other historical or contemporary supporting facts, they just ignore and off to the races with the Ad Hominem. One guy even said what I wrote was the dumbest (as I recall w/o looking it up) thing he had ever read. I gave him a mountain of evidence and he just goes away. Bizzare. I have to believe they don't reference skydiving manuals (SIMS, etc) or car manuals that way, but I guess that's because religion and politics are emotionally driven in most cases, I just prefer empirical evidence. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Lucky... 0 #259 September 13, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuoteIn order just to keep up with inflation and population growth from 2000 to 2008 the federal revenues needed to be $2.57T in 2008. So the shortfall in revenues in real terms was $50Billion. Thanks be to the GOP. ______________________________________________ Federal spending growth ALWAYS exceeds inflation and population growth. Who can honestly believe the deficit is related to not enough taxes....ridiculous. The deficit growth is due to TOO MUCH SPENDING. The bank bailout, auto bailouts, cash for clunkers, and the stimulus bill are four great recent examples. Pay attention - I was writing about about federal revenues, NOT spending. In real terms (constant $$) revenues decreased during GWB's presidency. They increased during Clinton's administration. He said he was going away, but now he came right back.....it's almost like having Brett Favre on the board. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,027 #260 September 13, 2009 QuoteQuote Doesn't it make sense that it's both collections and spending? What do you think creates the government's general fund? You have outlays on the spending end and tax revenues on the intake, i's both that matter. So if tax revenues fall to 10% of what they now are, as Libertarians would love, then you say that wouldn't affect the debt? The annual deficit is basicallly the number between revenue collections and outlays. Of course I'm talking Republican here, as much of Clinton's time we called that difference a suplus. ____________________________________________________ NO, it makes no sense at all. Spending is completely out of control and has been. Did you miss the auto bailouts, bank bailouts, stimulus waste, fraud and abuse in medicare, cash for clunkers, cash for appliances, etc? . Auto bailouts for GM and Chrysler- started by GWB. Bank bailouts - GWB again. AIG - the biggest single bailout - GWB again. Stimulus - remember GWB's checks for everyone? Republicans are the world's biggest hypocrites when it comes to criticizing government spending.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rickjump1 0 #261 September 13, 2009 QuoteQuote Because the dem's are spending money at a rate that will bankrupt us and we are trying to find ways to slow it down. By eliminating illegals from helth care we save billions. You should read this. www.examiner.com/x-6572-NY-Obama-Administration-Examiner~y2009m9d12-The-hypocrisy-of-tea-party-conservatives It's not about the past. It's about the present and how much of the taxpayers' money BHO is giving away. Seems like he has given away more than the sum total of all president's before him. When you can't think of anyone to blame but Bush, suck on your thumb and maybe he will go away.Do your part for global warming: ban beans and hold all popcorn farts. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,027 #262 September 13, 2009 Quote*** Preventing anyone from buying insurance with their own money for ideological reasons(as mnealtx and rushmc want to do) just transfers the burden onto the rest of us. I WANT everyone, including illegal aliens driving cars, to be insured at their own expense, so I don't have to pay additional premiums for uninsured motorists coverage. I WANT them to buy health insurance (at their own expense), as a pool of millions of unhealthy people is bad for all of us. If our dear leaders were serious, there would be no opportunity for anyone here illegally to be driving period. There would be no sanctuary cities, and nothing to stop local law enforcement from arresting anyone here illegally. If crimes were committed, justice would would be served before they were deported including those who received a death sentence [they get to go home DRT (dead right there)]. Sure, the public would be greatful if they had liability and health insurance, but anyone knowingly selling illegal aliens insurance should be subject to a fine and prision or both. There has to be a point where things are so uncomfortable, the illegals will head south voluntarily; kind of like President Eisenhower's "Operation Wetback". That is a different issue altogether. And if we could eliminate illegal aliens, we could also eliminate illegal drugs and illegal guns. Fat chance.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,027 #263 September 13, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuote Because the dem's are spending money at a rate that will bankrupt us and we are trying to find ways to slow it down. By eliminating illegals from helth care we save billions. You should read this. www.examiner.com/x-6572-NY-Obama-Administration-Examiner~y2009m9d12-The-hypocrisy-of-tea-party-conservatives It's not about the past. It's about the present and how much of the taxpayers' money BHO is giving away. Seems like he has given away more than the sum total of all president's before him. When you can't think of anyone to blame but Bush, suck on your thumb and maybe he will go away. Nice double standard you have going there.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Bolas 5 #264 September 13, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuote Because the dem's are spending money at a rate that will bankrupt us and we are trying to find ways to slow it down. By eliminating illegals from helth care we save billions. You should read this. www.examiner.com/x-6572-NY-Obama-Administration-Examiner~y2009m9d12-The-hypocrisy-of-tea-party-conservatives It's not about the past. It's about the present and how much of the taxpayers' money BHO is giving away. Seems like he has given away more than the sum total of all president's before him. When you can't think of anyone to blame but Bush, suck on your thumb and maybe he will go away. Nice double standard you have going there. Let's look at it another way. If the democrats think all or most of the debt is the republicans fault due to instituting large unfunded gov't programs, why do they now want to do the same sort of thing?Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Lucky... 0 #265 September 13, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuote Because the dem's are spending money at a rate that will bankrupt us and we are trying to find ways to slow it down. By eliminating illegals from helth care we save billions. You should read this. www.examiner.com/x-6572-NY-Obama-Administration-Examiner~y2009m9d12-The-hypocrisy-of-tea-party-conservatives It's not about the past. It's about the present and how much of the taxpayers' money BHO is giving away. Seems like he has given away more than the sum total of all president's before him. When you can't think of anyone to blame but Bush, suck on your thumb and maybe he will go away. It's not about Bush for you, you are looking at this mess as a microcosm that just occurred. Remember, the quarter Obama took office was the 4th out of the last 5 quarters of neg GDP growth, the first full quarter Obama presided over, the 2nd quarter of 09, the growth was -1.0 from -6.4 the previous quarter. So that is a drastic improvement, but let's be fair and objective, without Obama's stimulus, much of what was started in the Bush era, was neccessary to beat this mess. QuoteSeems like he has given away more than the sum total of all president's before him. No, you must be thinking of Bush, he inherited a debt from 1776 to 2001 that totalled 5.5T, he tacked on another 5T, so you are thinking of GWB when you think of presidents that gave away as much as all of the presidents before him. And the crazy thing is that GWB inherited a pretty good economy versus Clinton and Obama inheriting a total mess. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Lucky... 0 #266 September 13, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuote Because the dem's are spending money at a rate that will bankrupt us and we are trying to find ways to slow it down. By eliminating illegals from helth care we save billions. You should read this. www.examiner.com/x-6572-NY-Obama-Administration-Examiner~y2009m9d12-The-hypocrisy-of-tea-party-conservatives It's not about the past. It's about the present and how much of the taxpayers' money BHO is giving away. Seems like he has given away more than the sum total of all president's before him. When you can't think of anyone to blame but Bush, suck on your thumb and maybe he will go away. Nice double standard you have going there. Let's look at it another way. If the democrats think all or most of the debt is the republicans fault due to instituting large unfunded gov't programs, why do they now want to do the same sort of thing? Because we don't think that is the totality of the mess, in fact many / most Dems think it's the tax cuts as I've constantly posted here while being ignored by others. Let's go back and review those, shall we? I think most Dems feel that is the issue leading to the debt, but gross overspending sure doesn't help. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Lucky... 0 #267 September 13, 2009 QuoteWilson's timing may be poor, but he was not incorrect. ( did you see the look on Piglosi's face though ? PRICELESS !!!) Yet Wilson has been villified to the max !!! The people sheep should understand something... when the President says 'we are going to get cheaper cleaner energy,, what he means is.. HE WISHES THAT WOULD HAPPEN.. but it wont. Also, IMO, at some point 'they' are going to try to STOP all these kids breaking their femurs and pelvises !!! trust me,, it is inevitable that they will attempt that !!. Inevitable !! What you're missing here is that he broke a cardinal rule of Congress which is a VERY serious forum. If you were in a courtroom and you had the right to overtly object, fine, that's the right forum and process. But even in court you couldn't blurt out that someone is a liar, you could just object with a legitimate basis. I saw a specctator call the defendant a liar in such the same fashion in a murder trial about 6 months ago. It was just as the court was recessing and the judge had the man held, told him he could never come back to his courtroom, but the judge could have contempted him and sent him to jail. Without the rules of congress, rules of order we just have a bunch of people at a boxing fight yelling at will. McCain and other R's who call themselves Conservative R's were disgusted, and they agree with the content, but not the act. There comes a point to where if you can't operate under certaon rules you just get out, Wilson passed that point and should resign. Do you think he represented himself well? As for the substantive point here, I just wish the R's would come out with the way they really feel; they don't want everyone to have medical coverage, or just are purely unsympathetic to their fellow AMericans that don't have it. But they realize that wouldn't be a good talking point, so they defer to cost, illegals getting it, and they mitigate the number of legals that are uninsured and cannot afford it. If that's not teh case, then show me one Republican proposal where the substantively call for immediate coverage for the poor who cannot afford it. Just some BS about when the savings come in then they will be funded, or this trigger BS, which is just a was of buying time. I feel it borders on sociopathy to not care if others may be hurting and not be willing to agree with a process that won't cost that person a dime. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rushmc 23 #268 September 13, 2009 Quote Quote Quote Doesn't it make sense that it's both collections and spending? What do you think creates the government's general fund? You have outlays on the spending end and tax revenues on the intake, i's both that matter. So if tax revenues fall to 10% of what they now are, as Libertarians would love, then you say that wouldn't affect the debt? The annual deficit is basicallly the number between revenue collections and outlays. Of course I'm talking Republican here, as much of Clinton's time we called that difference a suplus. ____________________________________________________ NO, it makes no sense at all. Spending is completely out of control and has been. Did you miss the auto bailouts, bank bailouts, stimulus waste, fraud and abuse in medicare, cash for clunkers, cash for appliances, etc? . Auto bailouts for GM and Chrysler- started by GWB. Bank bailouts - GWB again. AIG - the biggest single bailout - GWB again. Stimulus - remember GWB's checks for everyone? Republicans are the world's biggest hypocrites when it comes to criticizing government spending. And very few if anybody liked it then So much for change huh"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,027 #269 September 13, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuote Because the dem's are spending money at a rate that will bankrupt us and we are trying to find ways to slow it down. By eliminating illegals from helth care we save billions. You should read this. www.examiner.com/x-6572-NY-Obama-Administration-Examiner~y2009m9d12-The-hypocrisy-of-tea-party-conservatives It's not about the past. It's about the present and how much of the taxpayers' money BHO is giving away. Seems like he has given away more than the sum total of all president's before him. When you can't think of anyone to blame but Bush, suck on your thumb and maybe he will go away. Nice double standard you have going there. Let's look at it another way. If the democrats think all or most of the debt is the republicans fault due to instituting large unfunded gov't programs, why do they now want to do the same sort of thing? Factoids extracted from the US Census Bureau annual report, 2009: Under Clinton, the median income increased 14 per cent. Under Bush it declined 4.2 per cent. Under Clinton the total number of Americans in poverty declined 16.9 per cent; under Bush it increased 26.1 per cent. Under Clinton the number of children in poverty declined 24.2 per cent; under Bush it increased by 21.4 per cent. Under Clinton, the number of Americans without health insurance, remained essentially even (down six-tenths of one per cent); under Bush it increased by 20.6 per cent. Adding Ronald Reagan's record to the comparison fills in the picture from another angle. Under Reagan, the median income grew, in contrast to both Bush the younger and Bush the elder. (The median income declined 3.2 per cent during the elder Bush's single term.) When Reagan was done, the median income stood at $47, 614 (again in constant 2008 dollars), 8.1 per cent higher than when Jimmy Carter left office in 1980. But despite that income growth, both overall and childhood poverty were higher when Reagan rode off into the sunset than when he arrived. The number of poor Americans increased from 29.3 million in 1980 to 31.7 million in 1988, an increase of 8.4 per cent. The number of children in poverty trended up from 11.5 million when Carter left to 12.5 million when Reagan stepped down, a comparable increase of 7.9 per cent. The total share of Americans in poverty didn't change over Reagan's eight years (at 13 per cent), but the share of children in poverty actually increased (from 18.3 to 19.5 per cent) despite the median income gains. Yup, the GOP sure knows how to run ruin the economy.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,027 #270 September 13, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuote Because the dem's are spending money at a rate that will bankrupt us and we are trying to find ways to slow it down. By eliminating illegals from helth care we save billions. You should read this. www.examiner.com/x-6572-NY-Obama-Administration-Examiner~y2009m9d12-The-hypocrisy-of-tea-party-conservatives It's not about the past. It's about the present and how much of the taxpayers' money BHO is giving away. Seems like he has given away more than the sum total of all president's before him. When you can't think of anyone to blame but Bush, suck on your thumb and maybe he will go away. It's not about Bush for you, you are looking at this mess as a microcosm that just occurred. Remember, the quarter Obama took office was the 4th out of the last 5 quarters of neg GDP growth, the first full quarter Obama presided over, the 2nd quarter of 09, the growth was -1.0 from -6.4 the previous quarter. So that is a drastic improvement, but let's be fair and objective, without Obama's stimulus, much of what was started in the Bush era, was neccessary to beat this mess. QuoteSeems like he has given away more than the sum total of all president's before him. No, you must be thinking of Bush, he inherited a debt from 1776 to 2001 that totalled 5.5T, he tacked on another 5T, so you are thinking of GWB when you think of presidents that gave away as much as all of the presidents before him. And the crazy thing is that GWB inherited a pretty good economy versus Clinton and Obama inheriting a total mess. You forgot Reagan, who tacked onto the debt almost TWICE as much as all the presidents before him.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,027 #271 September 13, 2009 Quote Quote Quote Quote Doesn't it make sense that it's both collections and spending? What do you think creates the government's general fund? You have outlays on the spending end and tax revenues on the intake, i's both that matter. So if tax revenues fall to 10% of what they now are, as Libertarians would love, then you say that wouldn't affect the debt? The annual deficit is basicallly the number between revenue collections and outlays. Of course I'm talking Republican here, as much of Clinton's time we called that difference a suplus. ____________________________________________________ NO, it makes no sense at all. Spending is completely out of control and has been. Did you miss the auto bailouts, bank bailouts, stimulus waste, fraud and abuse in medicare, cash for clunkers, cash for appliances, etc? . Auto bailouts for GM and Chrysler- started by GWB. Bank bailouts - GWB again. AIG - the biggest single bailout - GWB again. Stimulus - remember GWB's checks for everyone? Republicans are the world's biggest hypocrites when it comes to criticizing government spending. And very few if anybody liked it then So much for change huh If you had been criticizing Bush's disastrous fiscal policies from 2001 to 2008 (which you never did) you could escape the criticism that you have a double standard. As it is, your double standard is apparent for all to see.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites wmw999 2,456 #272 September 13, 2009 I went and looked at overall US population during that time. It increased roughly 5.6%, so the raw numbers do not reflect only population growth. And yes, I was going to call John on it if I found out otherwise Source was the Information Please Almanac Wendy P. There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites downwardspiral 0 #273 September 13, 2009 QuoteIf you had been criticizing Bush's disastrous fiscal policies from 2001 to 2008 (which you never did) you could escape the criticism that you have a double standard. As it is, your double standard is apparent for all to see. If it was a problem for you then, why isn't it a problem now?www.FourWheelerHB.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,027 #274 September 13, 2009 QuoteQuoteIf you had been criticizing Bush's disastrous fiscal policies from 2001 to 2008 (which you never did) you could escape the criticism that you have a double standard. As it is, your double standard is apparent for all to see. If it was a problem for you then, why isn't it a problem now? Did I say it isn't?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites nerdgirl 0 #275 September 13, 2009 Sometimes it’s nice to be on the other side of the planet, if only temporarily. If Rep Wilson was in Thailand he may have gotten a jail term, which I think is a credit to the US system (& British as well). From Saturday’s Straits Times “Yellow shirt' chief gets jail for second straight day” (full text requires registration): “A Thai court yesterday sentenced a leader of a protest movement [Sondhi Limthongkul] … to six months in prison for defamation.” “It was the second defamation conviction in two days against the outspoken media tycoon ….” /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next Page 11 of 18 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0 Go To Topic Listing
Lucky... 0 #258 September 13, 2009 QuoteQuote Because the dem's are spending money at a rate that will bankrupt us and we are trying to find ways to slow it down. By eliminating illegals from helth care we save billions. You should read this. www.examiner.com/x-6572-NY-Obama-Administration-Examiner~y2009m9d12-The-hypocrisy-of-tea-party-conservatives Isn't it just bizzare, the conservatives, so they're called (can't figure out why since they had the largest liberal giveaway of cash with Reagan, then GWB), are acting as though they are the ones who are fiscally stingy? And even if they justify their ill-engaged war in Iraq, that counts for about 18% of the 5T debt increase as Bush left office. But I think it's fair to look at the representations on this forum for the answer. Not saying they're bad guys, just that when people post data and other historical or contemporary supporting facts, they just ignore and off to the races with the Ad Hominem. One guy even said what I wrote was the dumbest (as I recall w/o looking it up) thing he had ever read. I gave him a mountain of evidence and he just goes away. Bizzare. I have to believe they don't reference skydiving manuals (SIMS, etc) or car manuals that way, but I guess that's because religion and politics are emotionally driven in most cases, I just prefer empirical evidence. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #259 September 13, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuoteIn order just to keep up with inflation and population growth from 2000 to 2008 the federal revenues needed to be $2.57T in 2008. So the shortfall in revenues in real terms was $50Billion. Thanks be to the GOP. ______________________________________________ Federal spending growth ALWAYS exceeds inflation and population growth. Who can honestly believe the deficit is related to not enough taxes....ridiculous. The deficit growth is due to TOO MUCH SPENDING. The bank bailout, auto bailouts, cash for clunkers, and the stimulus bill are four great recent examples. Pay attention - I was writing about about federal revenues, NOT spending. In real terms (constant $$) revenues decreased during GWB's presidency. They increased during Clinton's administration. He said he was going away, but now he came right back.....it's almost like having Brett Favre on the board. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,027 #260 September 13, 2009 QuoteQuote Doesn't it make sense that it's both collections and spending? What do you think creates the government's general fund? You have outlays on the spending end and tax revenues on the intake, i's both that matter. So if tax revenues fall to 10% of what they now are, as Libertarians would love, then you say that wouldn't affect the debt? The annual deficit is basicallly the number between revenue collections and outlays. Of course I'm talking Republican here, as much of Clinton's time we called that difference a suplus. ____________________________________________________ NO, it makes no sense at all. Spending is completely out of control and has been. Did you miss the auto bailouts, bank bailouts, stimulus waste, fraud and abuse in medicare, cash for clunkers, cash for appliances, etc? . Auto bailouts for GM and Chrysler- started by GWB. Bank bailouts - GWB again. AIG - the biggest single bailout - GWB again. Stimulus - remember GWB's checks for everyone? Republicans are the world's biggest hypocrites when it comes to criticizing government spending.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rickjump1 0 #261 September 13, 2009 QuoteQuote Because the dem's are spending money at a rate that will bankrupt us and we are trying to find ways to slow it down. By eliminating illegals from helth care we save billions. You should read this. www.examiner.com/x-6572-NY-Obama-Administration-Examiner~y2009m9d12-The-hypocrisy-of-tea-party-conservatives It's not about the past. It's about the present and how much of the taxpayers' money BHO is giving away. Seems like he has given away more than the sum total of all president's before him. When you can't think of anyone to blame but Bush, suck on your thumb and maybe he will go away.Do your part for global warming: ban beans and hold all popcorn farts. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,027 #262 September 13, 2009 Quote*** Preventing anyone from buying insurance with their own money for ideological reasons(as mnealtx and rushmc want to do) just transfers the burden onto the rest of us. I WANT everyone, including illegal aliens driving cars, to be insured at their own expense, so I don't have to pay additional premiums for uninsured motorists coverage. I WANT them to buy health insurance (at their own expense), as a pool of millions of unhealthy people is bad for all of us. If our dear leaders were serious, there would be no opportunity for anyone here illegally to be driving period. There would be no sanctuary cities, and nothing to stop local law enforcement from arresting anyone here illegally. If crimes were committed, justice would would be served before they were deported including those who received a death sentence [they get to go home DRT (dead right there)]. Sure, the public would be greatful if they had liability and health insurance, but anyone knowingly selling illegal aliens insurance should be subject to a fine and prision or both. There has to be a point where things are so uncomfortable, the illegals will head south voluntarily; kind of like President Eisenhower's "Operation Wetback". That is a different issue altogether. And if we could eliminate illegal aliens, we could also eliminate illegal drugs and illegal guns. Fat chance.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,027 #263 September 13, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuote Because the dem's are spending money at a rate that will bankrupt us and we are trying to find ways to slow it down. By eliminating illegals from helth care we save billions. You should read this. www.examiner.com/x-6572-NY-Obama-Administration-Examiner~y2009m9d12-The-hypocrisy-of-tea-party-conservatives It's not about the past. It's about the present and how much of the taxpayers' money BHO is giving away. Seems like he has given away more than the sum total of all president's before him. When you can't think of anyone to blame but Bush, suck on your thumb and maybe he will go away. Nice double standard you have going there.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Bolas 5 #264 September 13, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuote Because the dem's are spending money at a rate that will bankrupt us and we are trying to find ways to slow it down. By eliminating illegals from helth care we save billions. You should read this. www.examiner.com/x-6572-NY-Obama-Administration-Examiner~y2009m9d12-The-hypocrisy-of-tea-party-conservatives It's not about the past. It's about the present and how much of the taxpayers' money BHO is giving away. Seems like he has given away more than the sum total of all president's before him. When you can't think of anyone to blame but Bush, suck on your thumb and maybe he will go away. Nice double standard you have going there. Let's look at it another way. If the democrats think all or most of the debt is the republicans fault due to instituting large unfunded gov't programs, why do they now want to do the same sort of thing?Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Lucky... 0 #265 September 13, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuote Because the dem's are spending money at a rate that will bankrupt us and we are trying to find ways to slow it down. By eliminating illegals from helth care we save billions. You should read this. www.examiner.com/x-6572-NY-Obama-Administration-Examiner~y2009m9d12-The-hypocrisy-of-tea-party-conservatives It's not about the past. It's about the present and how much of the taxpayers' money BHO is giving away. Seems like he has given away more than the sum total of all president's before him. When you can't think of anyone to blame but Bush, suck on your thumb and maybe he will go away. It's not about Bush for you, you are looking at this mess as a microcosm that just occurred. Remember, the quarter Obama took office was the 4th out of the last 5 quarters of neg GDP growth, the first full quarter Obama presided over, the 2nd quarter of 09, the growth was -1.0 from -6.4 the previous quarter. So that is a drastic improvement, but let's be fair and objective, without Obama's stimulus, much of what was started in the Bush era, was neccessary to beat this mess. QuoteSeems like he has given away more than the sum total of all president's before him. No, you must be thinking of Bush, he inherited a debt from 1776 to 2001 that totalled 5.5T, he tacked on another 5T, so you are thinking of GWB when you think of presidents that gave away as much as all of the presidents before him. And the crazy thing is that GWB inherited a pretty good economy versus Clinton and Obama inheriting a total mess. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Lucky... 0 #266 September 13, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuote Because the dem's are spending money at a rate that will bankrupt us and we are trying to find ways to slow it down. By eliminating illegals from helth care we save billions. You should read this. www.examiner.com/x-6572-NY-Obama-Administration-Examiner~y2009m9d12-The-hypocrisy-of-tea-party-conservatives It's not about the past. It's about the present and how much of the taxpayers' money BHO is giving away. Seems like he has given away more than the sum total of all president's before him. When you can't think of anyone to blame but Bush, suck on your thumb and maybe he will go away. Nice double standard you have going there. Let's look at it another way. If the democrats think all or most of the debt is the republicans fault due to instituting large unfunded gov't programs, why do they now want to do the same sort of thing? Because we don't think that is the totality of the mess, in fact many / most Dems think it's the tax cuts as I've constantly posted here while being ignored by others. Let's go back and review those, shall we? I think most Dems feel that is the issue leading to the debt, but gross overspending sure doesn't help. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Lucky... 0 #267 September 13, 2009 QuoteWilson's timing may be poor, but he was not incorrect. ( did you see the look on Piglosi's face though ? PRICELESS !!!) Yet Wilson has been villified to the max !!! The people sheep should understand something... when the President says 'we are going to get cheaper cleaner energy,, what he means is.. HE WISHES THAT WOULD HAPPEN.. but it wont. Also, IMO, at some point 'they' are going to try to STOP all these kids breaking their femurs and pelvises !!! trust me,, it is inevitable that they will attempt that !!. Inevitable !! What you're missing here is that he broke a cardinal rule of Congress which is a VERY serious forum. If you were in a courtroom and you had the right to overtly object, fine, that's the right forum and process. But even in court you couldn't blurt out that someone is a liar, you could just object with a legitimate basis. I saw a specctator call the defendant a liar in such the same fashion in a murder trial about 6 months ago. It was just as the court was recessing and the judge had the man held, told him he could never come back to his courtroom, but the judge could have contempted him and sent him to jail. Without the rules of congress, rules of order we just have a bunch of people at a boxing fight yelling at will. McCain and other R's who call themselves Conservative R's were disgusted, and they agree with the content, but not the act. There comes a point to where if you can't operate under certaon rules you just get out, Wilson passed that point and should resign. Do you think he represented himself well? As for the substantive point here, I just wish the R's would come out with the way they really feel; they don't want everyone to have medical coverage, or just are purely unsympathetic to their fellow AMericans that don't have it. But they realize that wouldn't be a good talking point, so they defer to cost, illegals getting it, and they mitigate the number of legals that are uninsured and cannot afford it. If that's not teh case, then show me one Republican proposal where the substantively call for immediate coverage for the poor who cannot afford it. Just some BS about when the savings come in then they will be funded, or this trigger BS, which is just a was of buying time. I feel it borders on sociopathy to not care if others may be hurting and not be willing to agree with a process that won't cost that person a dime. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rushmc 23 #268 September 13, 2009 Quote Quote Quote Doesn't it make sense that it's both collections and spending? What do you think creates the government's general fund? You have outlays on the spending end and tax revenues on the intake, i's both that matter. So if tax revenues fall to 10% of what they now are, as Libertarians would love, then you say that wouldn't affect the debt? The annual deficit is basicallly the number between revenue collections and outlays. Of course I'm talking Republican here, as much of Clinton's time we called that difference a suplus. ____________________________________________________ NO, it makes no sense at all. Spending is completely out of control and has been. Did you miss the auto bailouts, bank bailouts, stimulus waste, fraud and abuse in medicare, cash for clunkers, cash for appliances, etc? . Auto bailouts for GM and Chrysler- started by GWB. Bank bailouts - GWB again. AIG - the biggest single bailout - GWB again. Stimulus - remember GWB's checks for everyone? Republicans are the world's biggest hypocrites when it comes to criticizing government spending. And very few if anybody liked it then So much for change huh"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,027 #269 September 13, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuote Because the dem's are spending money at a rate that will bankrupt us and we are trying to find ways to slow it down. By eliminating illegals from helth care we save billions. You should read this. www.examiner.com/x-6572-NY-Obama-Administration-Examiner~y2009m9d12-The-hypocrisy-of-tea-party-conservatives It's not about the past. It's about the present and how much of the taxpayers' money BHO is giving away. Seems like he has given away more than the sum total of all president's before him. When you can't think of anyone to blame but Bush, suck on your thumb and maybe he will go away. Nice double standard you have going there. Let's look at it another way. If the democrats think all or most of the debt is the republicans fault due to instituting large unfunded gov't programs, why do they now want to do the same sort of thing? Factoids extracted from the US Census Bureau annual report, 2009: Under Clinton, the median income increased 14 per cent. Under Bush it declined 4.2 per cent. Under Clinton the total number of Americans in poverty declined 16.9 per cent; under Bush it increased 26.1 per cent. Under Clinton the number of children in poverty declined 24.2 per cent; under Bush it increased by 21.4 per cent. Under Clinton, the number of Americans without health insurance, remained essentially even (down six-tenths of one per cent); under Bush it increased by 20.6 per cent. Adding Ronald Reagan's record to the comparison fills in the picture from another angle. Under Reagan, the median income grew, in contrast to both Bush the younger and Bush the elder. (The median income declined 3.2 per cent during the elder Bush's single term.) When Reagan was done, the median income stood at $47, 614 (again in constant 2008 dollars), 8.1 per cent higher than when Jimmy Carter left office in 1980. But despite that income growth, both overall and childhood poverty were higher when Reagan rode off into the sunset than when he arrived. The number of poor Americans increased from 29.3 million in 1980 to 31.7 million in 1988, an increase of 8.4 per cent. The number of children in poverty trended up from 11.5 million when Carter left to 12.5 million when Reagan stepped down, a comparable increase of 7.9 per cent. The total share of Americans in poverty didn't change over Reagan's eight years (at 13 per cent), but the share of children in poverty actually increased (from 18.3 to 19.5 per cent) despite the median income gains. Yup, the GOP sure knows how to run ruin the economy.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,027 #270 September 13, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuote Because the dem's are spending money at a rate that will bankrupt us and we are trying to find ways to slow it down. By eliminating illegals from helth care we save billions. You should read this. www.examiner.com/x-6572-NY-Obama-Administration-Examiner~y2009m9d12-The-hypocrisy-of-tea-party-conservatives It's not about the past. It's about the present and how much of the taxpayers' money BHO is giving away. Seems like he has given away more than the sum total of all president's before him. When you can't think of anyone to blame but Bush, suck on your thumb and maybe he will go away. It's not about Bush for you, you are looking at this mess as a microcosm that just occurred. Remember, the quarter Obama took office was the 4th out of the last 5 quarters of neg GDP growth, the first full quarter Obama presided over, the 2nd quarter of 09, the growth was -1.0 from -6.4 the previous quarter. So that is a drastic improvement, but let's be fair and objective, without Obama's stimulus, much of what was started in the Bush era, was neccessary to beat this mess. QuoteSeems like he has given away more than the sum total of all president's before him. No, you must be thinking of Bush, he inherited a debt from 1776 to 2001 that totalled 5.5T, he tacked on another 5T, so you are thinking of GWB when you think of presidents that gave away as much as all of the presidents before him. And the crazy thing is that GWB inherited a pretty good economy versus Clinton and Obama inheriting a total mess. You forgot Reagan, who tacked onto the debt almost TWICE as much as all the presidents before him.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,027 #271 September 13, 2009 Quote Quote Quote Quote Doesn't it make sense that it's both collections and spending? What do you think creates the government's general fund? You have outlays on the spending end and tax revenues on the intake, i's both that matter. So if tax revenues fall to 10% of what they now are, as Libertarians would love, then you say that wouldn't affect the debt? The annual deficit is basicallly the number between revenue collections and outlays. Of course I'm talking Republican here, as much of Clinton's time we called that difference a suplus. ____________________________________________________ NO, it makes no sense at all. Spending is completely out of control and has been. Did you miss the auto bailouts, bank bailouts, stimulus waste, fraud and abuse in medicare, cash for clunkers, cash for appliances, etc? . Auto bailouts for GM and Chrysler- started by GWB. Bank bailouts - GWB again. AIG - the biggest single bailout - GWB again. Stimulus - remember GWB's checks for everyone? Republicans are the world's biggest hypocrites when it comes to criticizing government spending. And very few if anybody liked it then So much for change huh If you had been criticizing Bush's disastrous fiscal policies from 2001 to 2008 (which you never did) you could escape the criticism that you have a double standard. As it is, your double standard is apparent for all to see.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites wmw999 2,456 #272 September 13, 2009 I went and looked at overall US population during that time. It increased roughly 5.6%, so the raw numbers do not reflect only population growth. And yes, I was going to call John on it if I found out otherwise Source was the Information Please Almanac Wendy P. There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites downwardspiral 0 #273 September 13, 2009 QuoteIf you had been criticizing Bush's disastrous fiscal policies from 2001 to 2008 (which you never did) you could escape the criticism that you have a double standard. As it is, your double standard is apparent for all to see. If it was a problem for you then, why isn't it a problem now?www.FourWheelerHB.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,027 #274 September 13, 2009 QuoteQuoteIf you had been criticizing Bush's disastrous fiscal policies from 2001 to 2008 (which you never did) you could escape the criticism that you have a double standard. As it is, your double standard is apparent for all to see. If it was a problem for you then, why isn't it a problem now? Did I say it isn't?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites nerdgirl 0 #275 September 13, 2009 Sometimes it’s nice to be on the other side of the planet, if only temporarily. If Rep Wilson was in Thailand he may have gotten a jail term, which I think is a credit to the US system (& British as well). From Saturday’s Straits Times “Yellow shirt' chief gets jail for second straight day” (full text requires registration): “A Thai court yesterday sentenced a leader of a protest movement [Sondhi Limthongkul] … to six months in prison for defamation.” “It was the second defamation conviction in two days against the outspoken media tycoon ….” /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next Page 11 of 18 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0
kallend 2,027 #260 September 13, 2009 QuoteQuote Doesn't it make sense that it's both collections and spending? What do you think creates the government's general fund? You have outlays on the spending end and tax revenues on the intake, i's both that matter. So if tax revenues fall to 10% of what they now are, as Libertarians would love, then you say that wouldn't affect the debt? The annual deficit is basicallly the number between revenue collections and outlays. Of course I'm talking Republican here, as much of Clinton's time we called that difference a suplus. ____________________________________________________ NO, it makes no sense at all. Spending is completely out of control and has been. Did you miss the auto bailouts, bank bailouts, stimulus waste, fraud and abuse in medicare, cash for clunkers, cash for appliances, etc? . Auto bailouts for GM and Chrysler- started by GWB. Bank bailouts - GWB again. AIG - the biggest single bailout - GWB again. Stimulus - remember GWB's checks for everyone? Republicans are the world's biggest hypocrites when it comes to criticizing government spending.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rickjump1 0 #261 September 13, 2009 QuoteQuote Because the dem's are spending money at a rate that will bankrupt us and we are trying to find ways to slow it down. By eliminating illegals from helth care we save billions. You should read this. www.examiner.com/x-6572-NY-Obama-Administration-Examiner~y2009m9d12-The-hypocrisy-of-tea-party-conservatives It's not about the past. It's about the present and how much of the taxpayers' money BHO is giving away. Seems like he has given away more than the sum total of all president's before him. When you can't think of anyone to blame but Bush, suck on your thumb and maybe he will go away.Do your part for global warming: ban beans and hold all popcorn farts. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,027 #262 September 13, 2009 Quote*** Preventing anyone from buying insurance with their own money for ideological reasons(as mnealtx and rushmc want to do) just transfers the burden onto the rest of us. I WANT everyone, including illegal aliens driving cars, to be insured at their own expense, so I don't have to pay additional premiums for uninsured motorists coverage. I WANT them to buy health insurance (at their own expense), as a pool of millions of unhealthy people is bad for all of us. If our dear leaders were serious, there would be no opportunity for anyone here illegally to be driving period. There would be no sanctuary cities, and nothing to stop local law enforcement from arresting anyone here illegally. If crimes were committed, justice would would be served before they were deported including those who received a death sentence [they get to go home DRT (dead right there)]. Sure, the public would be greatful if they had liability and health insurance, but anyone knowingly selling illegal aliens insurance should be subject to a fine and prision or both. There has to be a point where things are so uncomfortable, the illegals will head south voluntarily; kind of like President Eisenhower's "Operation Wetback". That is a different issue altogether. And if we could eliminate illegal aliens, we could also eliminate illegal drugs and illegal guns. Fat chance.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rickjump1 0 #261 September 13, 2009 QuoteQuote Because the dem's are spending money at a rate that will bankrupt us and we are trying to find ways to slow it down. By eliminating illegals from helth care we save billions. You should read this. www.examiner.com/x-6572-NY-Obama-Administration-Examiner~y2009m9d12-The-hypocrisy-of-tea-party-conservatives It's not about the past. It's about the present and how much of the taxpayers' money BHO is giving away. Seems like he has given away more than the sum total of all president's before him. When you can't think of anyone to blame but Bush, suck on your thumb and maybe he will go away.Do your part for global warming: ban beans and hold all popcorn farts. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,027 #262 September 13, 2009 Quote*** Preventing anyone from buying insurance with their own money for ideological reasons(as mnealtx and rushmc want to do) just transfers the burden onto the rest of us. I WANT everyone, including illegal aliens driving cars, to be insured at their own expense, so I don't have to pay additional premiums for uninsured motorists coverage. I WANT them to buy health insurance (at their own expense), as a pool of millions of unhealthy people is bad for all of us. If our dear leaders were serious, there would be no opportunity for anyone here illegally to be driving period. There would be no sanctuary cities, and nothing to stop local law enforcement from arresting anyone here illegally. If crimes were committed, justice would would be served before they were deported including those who received a death sentence [they get to go home DRT (dead right there)]. Sure, the public would be greatful if they had liability and health insurance, but anyone knowingly selling illegal aliens insurance should be subject to a fine and prision or both. There has to be a point where things are so uncomfortable, the illegals will head south voluntarily; kind of like President Eisenhower's "Operation Wetback". That is a different issue altogether. And if we could eliminate illegal aliens, we could also eliminate illegal drugs and illegal guns. Fat chance.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,027 #263 September 13, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuote Because the dem's are spending money at a rate that will bankrupt us and we are trying to find ways to slow it down. By eliminating illegals from helth care we save billions. You should read this. www.examiner.com/x-6572-NY-Obama-Administration-Examiner~y2009m9d12-The-hypocrisy-of-tea-party-conservatives It's not about the past. It's about the present and how much of the taxpayers' money BHO is giving away. Seems like he has given away more than the sum total of all president's before him. When you can't think of anyone to blame but Bush, suck on your thumb and maybe he will go away. Nice double standard you have going there.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bolas 5 #264 September 13, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuote Because the dem's are spending money at a rate that will bankrupt us and we are trying to find ways to slow it down. By eliminating illegals from helth care we save billions. You should read this. www.examiner.com/x-6572-NY-Obama-Administration-Examiner~y2009m9d12-The-hypocrisy-of-tea-party-conservatives It's not about the past. It's about the present and how much of the taxpayers' money BHO is giving away. Seems like he has given away more than the sum total of all president's before him. When you can't think of anyone to blame but Bush, suck on your thumb and maybe he will go away. Nice double standard you have going there. Let's look at it another way. If the democrats think all or most of the debt is the republicans fault due to instituting large unfunded gov't programs, why do they now want to do the same sort of thing?Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #265 September 13, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuote Because the dem's are spending money at a rate that will bankrupt us and we are trying to find ways to slow it down. By eliminating illegals from helth care we save billions. You should read this. www.examiner.com/x-6572-NY-Obama-Administration-Examiner~y2009m9d12-The-hypocrisy-of-tea-party-conservatives It's not about the past. It's about the present and how much of the taxpayers' money BHO is giving away. Seems like he has given away more than the sum total of all president's before him. When you can't think of anyone to blame but Bush, suck on your thumb and maybe he will go away. It's not about Bush for you, you are looking at this mess as a microcosm that just occurred. Remember, the quarter Obama took office was the 4th out of the last 5 quarters of neg GDP growth, the first full quarter Obama presided over, the 2nd quarter of 09, the growth was -1.0 from -6.4 the previous quarter. So that is a drastic improvement, but let's be fair and objective, without Obama's stimulus, much of what was started in the Bush era, was neccessary to beat this mess. QuoteSeems like he has given away more than the sum total of all president's before him. No, you must be thinking of Bush, he inherited a debt from 1776 to 2001 that totalled 5.5T, he tacked on another 5T, so you are thinking of GWB when you think of presidents that gave away as much as all of the presidents before him. And the crazy thing is that GWB inherited a pretty good economy versus Clinton and Obama inheriting a total mess. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #266 September 13, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuote Because the dem's are spending money at a rate that will bankrupt us and we are trying to find ways to slow it down. By eliminating illegals from helth care we save billions. You should read this. www.examiner.com/x-6572-NY-Obama-Administration-Examiner~y2009m9d12-The-hypocrisy-of-tea-party-conservatives It's not about the past. It's about the present and how much of the taxpayers' money BHO is giving away. Seems like he has given away more than the sum total of all president's before him. When you can't think of anyone to blame but Bush, suck on your thumb and maybe he will go away. Nice double standard you have going there. Let's look at it another way. If the democrats think all or most of the debt is the republicans fault due to instituting large unfunded gov't programs, why do they now want to do the same sort of thing? Because we don't think that is the totality of the mess, in fact many / most Dems think it's the tax cuts as I've constantly posted here while being ignored by others. Let's go back and review those, shall we? I think most Dems feel that is the issue leading to the debt, but gross overspending sure doesn't help. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #267 September 13, 2009 QuoteWilson's timing may be poor, but he was not incorrect. ( did you see the look on Piglosi's face though ? PRICELESS !!!) Yet Wilson has been villified to the max !!! The people sheep should understand something... when the President says 'we are going to get cheaper cleaner energy,, what he means is.. HE WISHES THAT WOULD HAPPEN.. but it wont. Also, IMO, at some point 'they' are going to try to STOP all these kids breaking their femurs and pelvises !!! trust me,, it is inevitable that they will attempt that !!. Inevitable !! What you're missing here is that he broke a cardinal rule of Congress which is a VERY serious forum. If you were in a courtroom and you had the right to overtly object, fine, that's the right forum and process. But even in court you couldn't blurt out that someone is a liar, you could just object with a legitimate basis. I saw a specctator call the defendant a liar in such the same fashion in a murder trial about 6 months ago. It was just as the court was recessing and the judge had the man held, told him he could never come back to his courtroom, but the judge could have contempted him and sent him to jail. Without the rules of congress, rules of order we just have a bunch of people at a boxing fight yelling at will. McCain and other R's who call themselves Conservative R's were disgusted, and they agree with the content, but not the act. There comes a point to where if you can't operate under certaon rules you just get out, Wilson passed that point and should resign. Do you think he represented himself well? As for the substantive point here, I just wish the R's would come out with the way they really feel; they don't want everyone to have medical coverage, or just are purely unsympathetic to their fellow AMericans that don't have it. But they realize that wouldn't be a good talking point, so they defer to cost, illegals getting it, and they mitigate the number of legals that are uninsured and cannot afford it. If that's not teh case, then show me one Republican proposal where the substantively call for immediate coverage for the poor who cannot afford it. Just some BS about when the savings come in then they will be funded, or this trigger BS, which is just a was of buying time. I feel it borders on sociopathy to not care if others may be hurting and not be willing to agree with a process that won't cost that person a dime. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #268 September 13, 2009 Quote Quote Quote Doesn't it make sense that it's both collections and spending? What do you think creates the government's general fund? You have outlays on the spending end and tax revenues on the intake, i's both that matter. So if tax revenues fall to 10% of what they now are, as Libertarians would love, then you say that wouldn't affect the debt? The annual deficit is basicallly the number between revenue collections and outlays. Of course I'm talking Republican here, as much of Clinton's time we called that difference a suplus. ____________________________________________________ NO, it makes no sense at all. Spending is completely out of control and has been. Did you miss the auto bailouts, bank bailouts, stimulus waste, fraud and abuse in medicare, cash for clunkers, cash for appliances, etc? . Auto bailouts for GM and Chrysler- started by GWB. Bank bailouts - GWB again. AIG - the biggest single bailout - GWB again. Stimulus - remember GWB's checks for everyone? Republicans are the world's biggest hypocrites when it comes to criticizing government spending. And very few if anybody liked it then So much for change huh"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,027 #269 September 13, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuote Because the dem's are spending money at a rate that will bankrupt us and we are trying to find ways to slow it down. By eliminating illegals from helth care we save billions. You should read this. www.examiner.com/x-6572-NY-Obama-Administration-Examiner~y2009m9d12-The-hypocrisy-of-tea-party-conservatives It's not about the past. It's about the present and how much of the taxpayers' money BHO is giving away. Seems like he has given away more than the sum total of all president's before him. When you can't think of anyone to blame but Bush, suck on your thumb and maybe he will go away. Nice double standard you have going there. Let's look at it another way. If the democrats think all or most of the debt is the republicans fault due to instituting large unfunded gov't programs, why do they now want to do the same sort of thing? Factoids extracted from the US Census Bureau annual report, 2009: Under Clinton, the median income increased 14 per cent. Under Bush it declined 4.2 per cent. Under Clinton the total number of Americans in poverty declined 16.9 per cent; under Bush it increased 26.1 per cent. Under Clinton the number of children in poverty declined 24.2 per cent; under Bush it increased by 21.4 per cent. Under Clinton, the number of Americans without health insurance, remained essentially even (down six-tenths of one per cent); under Bush it increased by 20.6 per cent. Adding Ronald Reagan's record to the comparison fills in the picture from another angle. Under Reagan, the median income grew, in contrast to both Bush the younger and Bush the elder. (The median income declined 3.2 per cent during the elder Bush's single term.) When Reagan was done, the median income stood at $47, 614 (again in constant 2008 dollars), 8.1 per cent higher than when Jimmy Carter left office in 1980. But despite that income growth, both overall and childhood poverty were higher when Reagan rode off into the sunset than when he arrived. The number of poor Americans increased from 29.3 million in 1980 to 31.7 million in 1988, an increase of 8.4 per cent. The number of children in poverty trended up from 11.5 million when Carter left to 12.5 million when Reagan stepped down, a comparable increase of 7.9 per cent. The total share of Americans in poverty didn't change over Reagan's eight years (at 13 per cent), but the share of children in poverty actually increased (from 18.3 to 19.5 per cent) despite the median income gains. Yup, the GOP sure knows how to run ruin the economy.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,027 #270 September 13, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuote Because the dem's are spending money at a rate that will bankrupt us and we are trying to find ways to slow it down. By eliminating illegals from helth care we save billions. You should read this. www.examiner.com/x-6572-NY-Obama-Administration-Examiner~y2009m9d12-The-hypocrisy-of-tea-party-conservatives It's not about the past. It's about the present and how much of the taxpayers' money BHO is giving away. Seems like he has given away more than the sum total of all president's before him. When you can't think of anyone to blame but Bush, suck on your thumb and maybe he will go away. It's not about Bush for you, you are looking at this mess as a microcosm that just occurred. Remember, the quarter Obama took office was the 4th out of the last 5 quarters of neg GDP growth, the first full quarter Obama presided over, the 2nd quarter of 09, the growth was -1.0 from -6.4 the previous quarter. So that is a drastic improvement, but let's be fair and objective, without Obama's stimulus, much of what was started in the Bush era, was neccessary to beat this mess. QuoteSeems like he has given away more than the sum total of all president's before him. No, you must be thinking of Bush, he inherited a debt from 1776 to 2001 that totalled 5.5T, he tacked on another 5T, so you are thinking of GWB when you think of presidents that gave away as much as all of the presidents before him. And the crazy thing is that GWB inherited a pretty good economy versus Clinton and Obama inheriting a total mess. You forgot Reagan, who tacked onto the debt almost TWICE as much as all the presidents before him.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,027 #271 September 13, 2009 Quote Quote Quote Quote Doesn't it make sense that it's both collections and spending? What do you think creates the government's general fund? You have outlays on the spending end and tax revenues on the intake, i's both that matter. So if tax revenues fall to 10% of what they now are, as Libertarians would love, then you say that wouldn't affect the debt? The annual deficit is basicallly the number between revenue collections and outlays. Of course I'm talking Republican here, as much of Clinton's time we called that difference a suplus. ____________________________________________________ NO, it makes no sense at all. Spending is completely out of control and has been. Did you miss the auto bailouts, bank bailouts, stimulus waste, fraud and abuse in medicare, cash for clunkers, cash for appliances, etc? . Auto bailouts for GM and Chrysler- started by GWB. Bank bailouts - GWB again. AIG - the biggest single bailout - GWB again. Stimulus - remember GWB's checks for everyone? Republicans are the world's biggest hypocrites when it comes to criticizing government spending. And very few if anybody liked it then So much for change huh If you had been criticizing Bush's disastrous fiscal policies from 2001 to 2008 (which you never did) you could escape the criticism that you have a double standard. As it is, your double standard is apparent for all to see.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wmw999 2,456 #272 September 13, 2009 I went and looked at overall US population during that time. It increased roughly 5.6%, so the raw numbers do not reflect only population growth. And yes, I was going to call John on it if I found out otherwise Source was the Information Please Almanac Wendy P. There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
downwardspiral 0 #273 September 13, 2009 QuoteIf you had been criticizing Bush's disastrous fiscal policies from 2001 to 2008 (which you never did) you could escape the criticism that you have a double standard. As it is, your double standard is apparent for all to see. If it was a problem for you then, why isn't it a problem now?www.FourWheelerHB.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,027 #274 September 13, 2009 QuoteQuoteIf you had been criticizing Bush's disastrous fiscal policies from 2001 to 2008 (which you never did) you could escape the criticism that you have a double standard. As it is, your double standard is apparent for all to see. If it was a problem for you then, why isn't it a problem now? Did I say it isn't?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nerdgirl 0 #275 September 13, 2009 Sometimes it’s nice to be on the other side of the planet, if only temporarily. If Rep Wilson was in Thailand he may have gotten a jail term, which I think is a credit to the US system (& British as well). From Saturday’s Straits Times “Yellow shirt' chief gets jail for second straight day” (full text requires registration): “A Thai court yesterday sentenced a leader of a protest movement [Sondhi Limthongkul] … to six months in prison for defamation.” “It was the second defamation conviction in two days against the outspoken media tycoon ….” /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
